Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Joshua Blair Read

26 February 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Joshua Blair Read (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months imposed upon his conviction for persistent family violence, breaches of bail and breach of the family violence order.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 11 January 2021.

The applicant’s application originally came before the Board at its hearing on 9 January 2021 but was adjourned so that the applicant’s accommodation could be assessed for suitability for electronic monitoring. His matter came again became before the Board on 12 February 2021, however he was unable to attend before the Board on that date due to other unavoidable requirements and ultimately the matter was relisted before the Board and heard on 26 February 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

No registered victims

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 purpose of 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 applicant committed violent and demeaning acts upon his former partner and mother of his child including attempted asphyxiation.  His actions occurred over the course of some months, were in contravention of family violence orders and stand as a significant betrayal of the mutual trust and respect that should be synonymous with a domestic relationship.  I can do not better than to repeat the description of the sentencing Court;

“Your crime when considered as a whole, involved a course of conduct which was arrogant intimidating cruel and violent.  The complainant suffered significant physical injury, as well as humiliation, indignity and anxiety.  Your conduct was largely concerned with intimidation and control.”

The applicant has a lengthy criminal record predominantly for drug offending reflecting a long-term addiction to illicit substances.  Unsurprisingly in light of his criminal record, the applicant has come under the supervision of the Department of Community Corrections in the past. Specifically he was supervised under a probation order in 2010 which he appears to have complied with in a sporadic manner.

More recently he has demonstrated compliant behaviour whilst serving his custodial sentence achieving a minimum classification, good case notes and employment as a general hand in the prison kitchen.

Unfortunately whilst applying to access therapeutic interventions to assist address his violence in a domestic setting and his drug addiction he has remained on the waiting list for all relevant therapeutic inputs.

At his attendance at hearing before the Board the applicant’s violence toward women was explored with him.  He expressed regret and remorse for his actions and claimed that it was “about time I grew up”.  He asserted particular motivation arising from the death of his sister in 2020 from cancer having no real desire to change his behaviour prior to her death. He has been identified as eligible to receive positive mentoring from a member of a church group his mother has contact with.

Accommodation has been identified as available and suitable for the applicant were he to return to the community and community corrections have assessed him as a suitable candidate for a parole order.

It is noted that the applicant is at high risk of future family violence offending as per his assessments under the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) tool.  He has been unable to access therapeutic interventions including the family violence intervention programs whilst in custody. His return to the community supervised under a parole order will facilitate his access to these interventions. His return can be closely monitored and supervised through electronic monitoring reducing the risk he may present to the community and most significantly his previous partner and victim. There is high potential given the applicant’s motivation for change, the improved accessibility to supports and programs to assist him on that pathway within the community and the capacity for close monitoring electronically that significant rehabilitation gains could be made and on that basis parole is approved.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied

• To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan;
• Electronic monitoring;
• Not to contact directly or indirectly the victim to the offending behaviour.

Paroled from 9 March 2021 - 11 July 2022