Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Q C R

12 March 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

QCR (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years imposed upon his conviction for maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person under the age of 17 years.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 17 February 2021.

The applicant initially appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on 12 February 2021 however the application was adjourned to enable his proposed accommodation to be assessed for its suitability for electronic monitoring. Ultimately the application was heard by the Board at its meeting on 12 March 2021. On that occasion the applicant was present at the hearing and was invited to provide any information he had in support of his application and made himself available for questioning by the Board.

A pre-parole report prepared on behalf the Board was read to the applicant prior to his appearance at the hearing.

Registered Victims

Yes

Statutory Criteria

In determining the application, the Board has had regard to the following statutory criteria:-

The Corrections Act 1997, s72, establishes a statutory criteria for determining suitability for parole.

S72 (4) specifically provides as follows:

“In determining whether or not a prisoner should be released on parole, the Board is to take into consideration –

• The likelihood of the prisoner re-offending; and
• The protection of the public; and
• The rehabilitation of the prisoner; and
• Any remarks made by the court in passing sentence; and
• The likelihood of the prisoner complying with the conditions; and
• The circumstances and gravity of the offence, or offences, for which the prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment; and
• The behaviour of the prisoner while in prison and, if he or she has been in a secure mental health unit, while in that secure mental health unit; and
• The behaviour of the prisoner during any previous release on parole; and
• The behaviour of the prisoner while subject to any order of a court; and
• Any reports tendered to the Board on the social background of the prisoner, the medical, psychological or psychiatric condition of the prisoner or any other matter relating to the prisoner, including in the case of a prisoner who is or has been a forensic patient any report of the Chief Forensic Psychiatrist; and
• The probable circumstances of the prisoner after release from prison; and
• Any statement provided under subsection (2B) by a victim, or, if subsection (2AB) applies, the parent or guardian of the victim, of an offence for which the prisoner has been sentenced to imprisonment; and
• If the prisoner is a sex offender prisoner, any notice or assessment given to the Board pursuant to section 31(6) or (7) concerning the prisoner's participation or non-participation in appropriate treatment; and
• Any other matters that the Board thinks are relevant.”

When considering the application for parole of a sex offender s31(3)(b) of the Act is also relevant:

• “The Director, on giving the sex offender prisoner the opportunity to participate in the appropriate treatment, is to inform the prisoner that…
• Participation, non-participation or unsatisfactory participation will, if the prisoner becomes eligible for parole, be factors taken into consideration by the Board in determining whether the prisoner should be released on parole.”

The High Court, in Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 rejected the proposition that the primary purpose of parole is the rehabilitation of the offender, deciding that it is "to provide for mitigation of the punishment of the prisoner in favour of his rehabilitation through conditional freedom, when appropriate, once the prisoner has served the minimum time that a judge determines justice requires that he must serve having regard to all the circumstances of his offence".

The system of parole does recognise, however, the capacity of people to change and reform, the benefits of supervision, treatment, and program delivery in the community and ultimately the potential this has for the protection of the community in reducing recidivism.

When considering eligibility for parole this purpose must be weighed against the risk each prisoner may pose to members of the community if released to serve the remainder of their sentence amongst them, the ability to remove or mitigate that risk by the imposition of appropriate conditions and understanding the victim’s “voice” and the desire to continue to punish for the criminal wrongdoing.

Consideration

The victim of the applicant’s offending was the sister of his then partner.  The offending occurred when the victim was aged between 14 to 16 years of age however the majority of the offending occurred over a 6 month period when the victim was 14 to 15 years of age.  The offending gradually escalated in seriousness from inappropriate touching to intercourse.  At the time of the offending the applicant was in a committed relationship with the victim’s sister with whom he had fathered twins.  The criminal behaviour involved the applicant’s manipulation and betrayal of trust of the victim without regard to her vulnerability due to her age and familial connection with him.

The applicant’s criminal history involves no other sexual offending.  There is a history of assault involving his then partner, the victim’s sister, requiring a family violence order otherwise the history consists of a couple of minor traffic matters only.

To address his offending the applicant engaged with the New Directions course whilst imprisoned.  The treatment summary provided by the course facilitators identify the offending to be the product of several factors including the:

“…opportunistic and easy access to the victim, deteriorating mental health, ack of intimacy within his relationship and tendency to over control his feelings.  This resulted in him seeking companionship with a vulnerable, child where he believed he would be able to meet his intimacy and sexual needs.”

The applicant was described in the report as an “active and willing participant”, “able to engage” in the program and “grasp” its contents.  It was the belief of the facilitators of the course that the applicant would benefit from supervision on return to the community to assist him implement the strategies and skills he has learnt from his program participation.

In addition, the applicant also engaged in vocational training obtaining a white card, cert III in using technology and engaged in a barista course.

The applicant has behaved in a quiet and compliant manner whilst serving his sentence of imprisonment. He is classified as minimum security. The applicant was subject of an assault by another prisoner in August 2020.

Accommodation has been identified which is suitable for the applicant and which would allow for there to be electronic monitoring of him.

At the time of his sentencing a psychiatric report was obtained which did not diagnose major psychiatric illness or abnormally high sexual drive but did note social deficits and identify several situational stressors that were occurring around the time of his offending including relationship difficulties, parenting issues, loss of intimacy and financial matters.  Recommendation was made at that time that the applicant would benefit from psychoeducation regarding sexual consent and the impact of sexual abuse on young people, relationship counselling, parenting education and psychological intervention to target his social anxiety.

The Board have considered carefully the statements made by the victim’s mother at the time of his sentencing.  The actions of the applicant have clearly and materially altered her life trajectory, causing her to suffer through its significant psychological and physiological consequences on her health and wellbeing.  There is nothing that can be done in the context of parole to ameliorate the victim’s pain and suffering.

The applicant’s rehabilitation would be assisted by a supervised release back into the community. He can be electronically monitored. He has a support group who he can engage with to deal with any unhelpful or inappropriate feelings that may arise upon his return to the community.  The way he has served his sentence thus far suggests that he will be compliant with the requirements of a parole order.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

• Not to enter the suburb of west Launceston;
• Not to approach the victim directly or indirectly;
• To submit to electronic monitoring.

Paroled from 23 March 2021 - 27 February 2023