Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Billy Galvin Riley

14 May 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Billy Galvin Gordon Riley (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 2 months imposed upon his conviction for matters including attempted aggravated armed robbery, evading police and drug, driving and family violence matters.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 20^th of May 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 14^th of May 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.

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’s offending is and has in the past been driven, at least in part, by his drug use. He developed an addiction to methylamphetamine and with it lost his stability in life including his accommodation, family, and employment prospects.  With that loss his offending escalated.

Previous opportunities for community supervision as a sentencing option have been afforded to the applicant with mixed success.  Community Service Orders imposed in 2014 were completed, a 2017 Probation order was breached by further offending and a Community Service Order in 2018 was breached.

The applicant has also struggled for compliance whilst serving his current custodial sentence. He is currently classified as medium security and has engaged in internal offending including possession of unauthorised items and assault.

Whilst this record of offending, poor compliance with community supervision and internal offending raises concern about the capacity of the applicant to comply with a parole order and the risk he may pose to the public if noncompliant there are some signs of a change in attitude and behaviour.

Case notes described the applicant as polite and respectful and that whilst more aged case notes identified him as argumentative this description had not been a feature of his case notes in the past 12months.  The last occasion of internal offending was in April of 2021 when he was found to have left or attempted to leave a place where he had been directed to be.  The applicant is employed as a cleaner in the prison and reports refer to him as undertaking that work to a “high standard”.

At the hearing before the Board the applicant agreed that his attitude and consequently his behaviour had changed.  He had not used drugs for the past 6 months and wished to maintain his sobriety.  To assist him in this he has completed the Equips Foundation course during his sentence and the exit report from that program records him as being an engaged participant who had insight into the relevance of the course concepts on his lifestyle and desire for change.

If released back into the community the applicant also has the benefit of support from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre and Health Services.  That support will be directed toward facilitating the applicant’s access to health care, drug and alcohol counselling and general reintegration into the community.

The applicant has identified his risk factors to be a relapse to drug use and a return to engagement with negative associates and has identified strategies and sources of support to assist him with these challenges.

Community Corrections have assessed the applicant as a suitable candidate for a parole order. The Board in considering all matters believe the applicant’s motivation to shift his life’s trajectory from one of meaningless drug use and crime to a more meaningful and rewarding life whereby he can be involved with and be a provider for his daughter, is real. Further there are factors that are protective of the risk of reoffending none the least being his real motivation to reunite with his daughter.  The applicant has commenced to equip himself with some of the skills he will need to pursue a pro social path and these gains can be consolidated on his return to the community particularly with the support he will receive from TAC.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

• Electronic monitoring

Paroled from 25 May 2021 - 20 July 2023