Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by John Saether

25 June 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

John SAETHER (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Attempted Armed Robbery, Aggravated assault x3, Unlawfully possess a dangerous article in a public place, Common Assault and being Unlawfully armed in public.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 14^th of April 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 25^th of June 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 has no relevant criminal history before the commission of these offences.  For that reason, he has not before been to prison, or supervised by Community Corrections in the Community.

The applicant’s mental health and addiction to illicit substances is highly relevant to his conduct on this occasion.  He entered a pharmacy, claimed to be armed with a knife and sought, under threat of harm, a cache of prescription drugs which he had named on a list he provided to the pharmacist.  The pharmacist was able to activate a duress alarm which led to the arrival of the police at the scene.  The plaintiff sought to leave by brandishing the knife and ultimately there was a scene on the street outside the pharmacy where the police attempted to surround, contain, and restrain the applicant.  While attempting to do so members of the public were exposed to the event including one who had inadvertently driven into the scene resulting in the applicant, much to that person’s distress, attempting to gain access to her car.

Mental health issues have permeated and impacted upon the plaintiff’s life since childhood.  He has been diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder and unipolar depression.  He states that at the time of the offending he had run out of his prescribed medication and had instead begun to self-medicate with illicit substances. The commission by him of these offences appears to have occurred not only because of the applicant’s desire to obtain and use the pharmaceuticals but also whilst he was under the influence of drugs.  Indeed, it has been postulated that the use by the applicant of a significant quantity of pregabalin the night before this event may well have influenced his criminal conduct.

During his custodial period the applicant’s mental health appears to have been stabilised by the provision of appropriate treatment and the use by him of prescribed medication. He has not committed any breach of the prison regulations and has been described in case notes as consistently having positive interactions with correctional officers and fellow inmates.

The applicant has engaged in alcohol and drug counselling during his sentence where his participation has been described as being to a high standard, and has engaged in a tertiary entry program.

Accommodation which is appropriate, supportive, and pro social is available for the applicant during the parole period.

There is little doubt that the actions of the applicant on the day he committed his crime has resulted in significant and long-lasting stress to the victims, including the police, who had the misfortune to have been embroiled in these events.  There is significant prospect, however, of this applicant’s reform.  He has not previously engaged in criminal activity; his mental health has now been stabilised with medication and his access to ongoing treatment for his mental health will continue in the community.  He indicates that he hid the depth of his spiral from his family prior to his offending.  Now, aware of the same, he states that his family and he will remain vigilant to ensure that he does not again let his mental health slip.  He is forward thinking with plans to eventually enter university and study Computer Science.

Supervision under a parole order will provide the applicant with a layer of support and scrutiny to ensure that he does continue to maintain good treatment practices.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied

To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan

Paroled from 5 July 2021 - 14 April 2022