Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Jamie Lee Vimpany

11 June 2021

Reasons for Decision

Jamie Lee VIMPANY (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment of 5 years imposed upon his conviction for Causing Grievous Bodily Harm.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on 2^nd of May 2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board initially on the 30^th of April but did not at that time have suitable accommodation available.  Accordingly his application was adjourned until suitable accommodation was located and was ultimately heard by the Board on the 11^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 a significant criminal history commencing from a young age and continuing until the commission of this offence.  That criminal history includes matters of dishonesty, drugs, firearms, and violence.  By reason of his criminal record, he is no stranger to Community Corrections having been supervised by that Department on Probation and Community Service Orders in the past.  Interestingly and to the applicant’s credit, the most recent of the Probation order in 2016 elicited a good response from him to supervision.  His engagement with the order was described as being positive and he appeared to have been able to sustain a significant reduction in drug use during the period of the order.

The applicant’s reliance on drugs is highly relevant to his anti-social and offending behaviour.  His history of use of illicit substances appears long standing and entrenched.  His imprisonment appears to have been somewhat of a circuit breaker in this regard with all appearances reflecting that the applicant has been able to sustain being drug free whilst in the custodial environment.

Except for one incident in November of 2020 the applicant’s behaviour has been positive.  He has been described as a pleasant and willing inmate.  He achieved a minimum classification and indeed, for a period, was housed in the O’Hara Cottages reflected his status as a trusted inmate. The November incident occurred in the O’Hara Cottages and involved the applicant engaging in a fight with another inmate.  The consequence of this was the applicant’s removal from the cottages and his separation to the Risdon Prison Centre for 5 days.  It was, however, noted by the Disciplinary Panel hearing the incident that the actions of the applicant were out of character for him.

The applicant has been employed during his sentence as a leading hand in the kitchen also to good reports.  He has undertaken vocational courses including Automotive certificate 1, numeracy and literacy, IT Certificate 1, Safe Food Handling, white card, construction, computer studies and Certificate 1 and 2 in vocational pathways which will enhance his prospects for work upon release.

In support of the application for parole the Board received a letter from the applicant’s sister, who no doubt is very supportive of her brother, but did refer to the destructive path her brother had been on and her observation that he had appeared to have changed during his time in custody.  She noted that he was hard working and had engaged in studies with an eye for obtaining employment upon release and described his broader family as strong and supportive of him returning to the community and leading a pro social life.

Letters of support were also received from the applicant’s partner and a family friend who runs his own business and has work available for him upon his release.

The applicant’s crime was significant.  He used a firearm and shot his victim.  As a result, his victim had to endure pain, prolonged hospitalisation and treatment as well as mental health difficulties which no doubt endure. He has lost the trust and confidence to go about his daily life.

This is the applicant’s second term of imprisonment but it is by far the longest that he has spent in custody.  The applicant appears to have utilised the time well by his engagement in study and employment.  He has demonstrated a capacity to comply with the rules and regulations of the prison and should be able to demonstrate similar compliance with the expectations and laws that govern society.  His aim for reform would benefit from the supervision and support of a parole order.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied

• Electronic monitoring
• Excluded from a specified location

Paroled from 22 June 2021 - 2 November 2022