Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Nicholas Aaron Scott

15 October 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Nicholas Aaron SCOTT (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for burglaries, stealing, aggravated burglary, unlawfully injuring property & carjacking.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 22/10/2021 .

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 15/10/2021.  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 current sentence of imprisonment relates to conduct occurring through 2019 of stealing cars in and around Sandy Bay including at the Tasmanian University campus, drug use and driving offences.  He also broke into a home whilst the owners were overseas, stealing items and causing damage to their property, and terrorised a mother and her young son by entering their property, approaching the mother in her backyard, forcing her to give up her car keys punching her to the face and stealing her vehicle. No doubt his actions caused significant distress for the people who had the misfortune to have been subjected to his offending.

At least in part the applicant’s actions were fuelled by his drug use. His offending was both under the influence of and motivated by the need to fund his use of illicit substances. His history of drug use is lengthy and entrenched.  He was considered, however, at sentencing not to be “without hope”, Escourt J noted in this regard the steps he had taken by that time to engage in therapeutic intervention to address his drug use and his motivation to create a positive relationship with his son.  Nevertheless, the applicant has a significant criminal history particularly for offending in a similar manner.  By the time of his sentencing on these matters he had accumulated approximately 20 convictions for motor vehicle stealing in addition to others for dishonesty, setting fire to property and aggravated burglary.  His record reflects a sustained pattern of committing crime against others to fulfil in his selfish needs and the absence of stable accommodation and pro social influences and support.

Efforts have been made in the past to engage Mr Scott in community-based supervision and therapeutic intervention in order to enable him to pursue a more pro social path.  Mr Scott has engaged positively in the past in the youth justice system however has struggled since coming of age.  Indeed, the transition from the youth to adult justice system has been problematic for him with the outcome of many of the positive steps that he had previously taken becoming disrupted and lost upon him becoming an adult.

The manner in which he has served the first part of his sentence perhaps reflects this.  He has not been able to progress from a maximum-security classification and has engaged in conduct in breach of prison rules. However, there appears to have been a change in the applicant’s behaviour over the past few months and he has case notes reflecting positive behaviour.  He has engaged in drug and alcohol counselling to address his addiction and completed the resilience program.  The case notes from that program described the applicant’s participation as thoughtful and constructive and it was felt that he “demonstrated genuine pro-social attitudes with a desire to incorporate the lessons from the program into his life.”  The applicant is particularly motivated by his 18month old son and the hope of building a positive and constructive relationship with him.

The assessment of Community Corrections is that the applicant would not only be suitable for parole but would also benefit from such an order as it would enhance his ability to access counselling and therapeutic programs to address his offending behaviour and provide the significant support he requires as a youthful offender with complex trauma based issues.  The Board agrees with this assessment and considers that issues of risk are best met by supporting the applicant’s transition from custody to the community and increasing his accessibility to therapeutic inputs.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• To obtain a mental health care plan
• To not approach directly or indirectly the victims to his offending
• Exclusion from specified areas

Paroled from 27 October 2021 - 22 July 2023