Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Liam Thomas Ransley

28 May 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background

Liam Thomas Ransley (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a cumulative sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 2 months, with a non-parole period of 19 months imposed upon conviction on charges of aggravated armed robbery, aggravated burglary, stealing, breach of suspended sentence and aggravated assault.

Parole Eligibility Date

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 4 June 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 28 May 2021.

On that occasion the applicant 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 of the Board had been read to the applicant prior to his appearance at the hearing.

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.”

Documentation

The Board has had regard to the following documents in considering the application: -

1. The application;
2. Comments on passing sentence;
3. Papers provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions;
4. Prison summary;
5. Record of prior convictions;
6. Prison episode summary report;
7. Pre-parole report;
8. Home assessment.

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 punish for the criminal wrongdoing.

Consideration

The applicant is a relatively young man whose record of offending behaviour commenced in his mid-teens, characterised by offences of dishonesty and violence. The most serious of these involved an aggravated armed robbery in early 2019, followed by an aggravated assault in late 2019.  The commission of these offences breached a suspended sentence imposed in relation to offences committed in 2018.

In comments on passing sentence in relation to the charge of aggravated assault, Justice Pearce noted the applicant had “an extremely difficult upbringing”, having been placed in foster care at an early age with one of his younger siblings.  The death of his foster mother in the applicant’s early teens led to the applicant being placed in another foster home where he experienced abuse.  This led ultimately to the applicant removing himself from care and engaging in a largely itinerant lifestyle, becoming involved with pro-criminal influences, disengaged from schooling, and commencing the use of illicit drugs.

The applicant has re-established a close relationship with his mother and another sibling who has visited him while in prison.   The applicant describes his mother as a positive support, and it is reported she and her partner are willing to support the applicant throughout a parole period.

During his custodial sentence, the applicant’s compliance and behaviour has been largely positive, and he progressed through the system to minimum security classification and accommodation in Ron Barwick Prison.  However due to an internal offence involving an assault of another inmate, the applicant was regressed in his classification and accommodation to maximum security.

Prior to his regression the applicant was on the waitlist for EQUIPS Addiction, EQUIPS Aggression and the Gottawana program but had commenced the Inside Out program. It is reported that he has continued to engage in this program on a one-to-one basis while in maximum security accommodation.

Additionally, the applicant has been supported by the Therapeutic Services Unit in relation to a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to assist him with emotional regulation and developing skills to manage his anger.  He has reportedly also re-engaged with an external support service regarding therapeutic support for complex trauma associated with the abuse he suffered during his childhood.

The applicant has previously had the benefit of a parole order in early 2019 but this was revoked within 2 months of commencement because of non-compliance relating to substance abuse.

The applicant has been assessed as requiring a very high level of intervention from Community Corrections.  Some concerns have been noted in the Pre-Parole report regarding the applicant’s capacity and motivation to comply with the strict conditions of parole due to a history of non-compliance on other community-based orders.

On interview before the Board, the applicant was questioned regarding his previous non-compliance and his capacity to comply with the stringent conditions of parole. The applicant expressed a recognition that he has not previously addressed his mental health and trauma issues or “asked for help” but since engaging with external supports and counselling while in prison he was motivated to avoid spending his life in gaol.

Accommodation has been identified as available and suitable for the applicant if granted parole. Community Corrections has assessed the applicant as suitable for electronic monitoring at his nominated accommodation and have recommended this be a condition of any parole order to assist with adequate monitoring of compliance.

While it clear that the applicant will face challenges regarding his propensity to relapse into illicit drug use if he returns to the community, there are several protective factors in place to assist him to maintain compliance.  The applicant has a supportive family, has been assessed as suitable for additional support from Beyond the Wire, and returning to the community supervised under a parole order will facilitate access to therapeutic interventions he has been unable to access while in custody to date.  Additionally, recommendations have been made for additional conditions restricting the applicant’s return to locations where he may be exposed to pro-criminal associates.

On balancing the above, the Board agrees with Community Corrections assessment that the applicant is a suitable candidate for parole.

The Board’s determination

Parole Granted

Special Conditions

• Be assessed for a mental health plan and attend psychological counselling as recommended by that plan.
• Must not travel north of Campbell Town in Tasmania
• Must submit to electronic monitoring

Paroled from 7 June 2021 - 5 January 2023