Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Adam Jacob Shepherd

1 October 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Adam Jacob Shepherd (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months imposed upon conviction on a charge of aggravated robbery.

The applicant has previously had the benefit of parole orders. The applicant was granted parole at the Board’s meeting of 28 June 2019, but this was revoked in September 2019 due to drug use. The applicant was again afforded the opportunity for parole in December 2019 and remained compliant for over 12 months until alleged new offending led to the Board revoking the order in April 2021.

The applicant again became eligible to be considered for parole on 15 April 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 1 October 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.

Registered Victim

There is a registered victim.

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: -

• The application;
• Comments on passing sentence;
• Papers provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions;
• Prison summary;
• Record of prior convictions
• Prison episode summary report;
• Pre-parole report;
• 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

At the time of the offending behaviour the applicant was 26 years of age and is now 33. He has had a lengthy history of offending from a young age, principally matters of dishonesty with some incidents of violence by way of assault. The circumstances of the aggravated armed robbery involving the applicant’s use of a gun in a threatening manner while he and an accomplice broke into a hotel demanding money demonstrated a significant increase in seriousness.

By this application, the applicant seeks a further opportunity to undertake a parole order within the community, after returning to custody in April 2021 after the revocation of a parole order granted in December 2019. At the time of granting parole on that occasion, the Board noted that the applicant strongly asserted he was committed and understood the degree of hard work required for him to move toward a productive non-offending lifestyle given his inability to comply on previous community-based supervision orders.

It appears that to some extent on the applicant’s last release to parole he did in fact demonstrate his ability to rehabilitate, work hard and embark on a pathway towards a more productive, pro-social lifestyle. It is reported his compliance was excellent, engaging in alcohol and drug counselling and sessions with a psychologist, and obtaining employment until he was involved in a “road rage” incident and charged with common assault, offending which ultimately led to the revocation. It is noted that the applicant was not convicted of the charge of assault as it was subsequently dismissed.

Despite good compliance, it is reported the applicant has clearly struggled to manage his behaviour when subject to external pressures, both in the community regarding his turbulent relationship with his now ex-partner and in the custodial setting. Case notes reflect one incident of internal offending in September 2021 relating to aggressive and threatening behaviour which led to a regression in his classification from minimum to medium, loss of employment in the vegetable processing area and relocation from minimum security to the medium security prison.

When challenged regarding his behaviour on interview by the Board, the applicant acknowledged he should not have become involved in the incident which led to his parole revocation and agreed he would need to work harder to manage his behaviour if returned to the community. He outlined to the Board that he had started to “turn my life around” during his last period of parole, having returned to living with his family, gaining employment, and remaining drug free and learning to be part of the community.

In the pre-parole report prepared for the Board, in assessing the applicant has a high-risk offender, Community Corrections have noted concerns regarding the need for the applicant to continue to attend relationship counselling and general counselling to develop strategies to manage challenging and stressful situations.

However, based on the applicant’s previous good compliance, including his attitude to the breach of the order by handing himself in on the parole warrant prior to revocation, the applicant has been assessed as suitable for a further opportunity for parole. Additional monitoring of the applicant by way of electronic monitoring has been recommended to assist in supporting the applicant’s compliance with parole conditions.

The applicant’s offending behaviour was significant. A statement taken from the victim in respect of the aggravated armed robbery was considered by the Judge at the time of sentencing and demonstrates the ongoing effect the offending behaviour has had upon him.

Nevertheless, the applicant has since demonstrated an ability to return to a positive pro-social lifestyle during his last period of parole. The applicant has suitable and pro-social accommodation and has prospects of employment if returned to the community, a factor that has been noted in the past as assisting the applicant to remain motivated and positive in his behaviour. The Board determines the applicant would be assisted by a further parole order to continue to remain drug free and proceed to reintegrate into the community.

The Board’s determination

Parole is granted

Special Conditions applied:

• Non-association with certain named persons
• Exclusion from a certain geographical area
• Not approach or contact named registered victims
• Subject to electronic monitoring of parole conditions

Paroled from 12 October 2021 - 5 May 2024