Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Samuel Jayden Smith

8 November 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Samuel Jayden Smith (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 22 months with a non-parole period of 11 months imposed upon conviction on a range of matters including dangerous driving, evade police, burglary, stealing, unlawfully setting fire to property, receiving stolen property and several summary driving, drug and traffic offences.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 11 August 2021, but the hearing of his application was adjourned at the meeting of the Board on 6 August 2021 due to lack of suitable accommodation.

The applicant then appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 12 November 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.

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:

This applicant is a relatively young man who has a prior history of driving matters including drink and drug driving and driving whilst disqualified in addition to matters of dishonesty and family violence charges.

The most serious of his current offending relates to a charge of dangerous driving involving the applicant acquiring a vehicle parked on private property and driving towards Geeveston from Huonville.  When police attempted to intercept him, the applicant engaged in a course of significantly dangerous driving, driving at excessive speed and dangerously overtaking vehicles to avoid apprehension, ultimately driving into the bush and setting fire to the vehicle before fleeing.

At the time of offending the applicant was under the influence of methylamphetamine (“Ice”) a substance he had developed an addiction to in the 12 months prior to his arrest after the breakdown of his relationship with his former partner, with whom he has a young child.

Prior to this, after finishing Grade 10, the applicant had been employed in a variety of jobs, most recently in aquaculture in the region where he grew up and his family remain. The applicant enjoys good family support and has been visited during his sentence by his parents and sister and has maintained contact with his three-year-old daughter.

During his custodial sentence, the applicant has maintained a consistent work history and until recently had attained a minimum classification with employment as an external cleaner, cleaning the prison transport vehicles.  Case notes reflect generally positive and compliant behaviour.

However, due to an incident of internal offending involving suspected trafficking of suboxone strips into the prison through visitation, the applicant was regressed and is currently classified as medium.  He is now employed as a general hand in the medium security complex.

When challenged about this internal offending and possible effect on the outcome of his parole application, the applicant acknowledged he had done the wrong thing, asserting his decision was stupid but motivated by debts owed to other inmates regarding his use of drugs while incarcerated. Despite this, the applicant asserted he is now drug free and is motivated to remain so, particularly to ensure he can maintain his relationship with his daughter.

The applicant has engaged in therapeutic intervention regarding his offending, having completed the Gottawanna program just prior to his classification regression.  An exit report provided to the Board suggests the applicant has developed some recognition of the impact of drug use on his life and associating with the “wrong” people, leading to loss of employment and affecting his ability to have time with his daughter.

While concerns have been raised by Community Corrections regarding the applicant’s readiness and suitability for parole because of his internal offending, the applicant has recently obtained suitable accommodation that is deemed prosocial and supportive of the applicant adhering to parole conditions.

Despite the applicant recently undermining the progress he made within the prison environment due to the internal offending, in attaining a minimum classification he has demonstrated a capacity to comply with the strict conditions and engage appropriately within the system.

While concerns remain regarding his readiness for parole, the existence of good family support, suitable accommodation, and weekly contact with his daughter that the applicant advised is his prime motivation to remain drug free are protective factors that would support the applicant to maintain compliance.

On balance, the Board determines the applicant sufficiently meets the statutory criteria to be suitable for parole.

The Board’s determination:

Parole approved

Paroled from 22 November 2021 to 11 August 2022