Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Mathew Luke Williams

23 July 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Mathew Luke WILLIAMS (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 3 years imposed upon his convictions for Aggravated Armed Robbery.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the20th of May 2021.

The applicant initially appeared before the Board at its hearing on the 14^th of May 2021. The application was at that time adjourned to enable the applicant to be assessed for suitability for the S8 program. He then appeared before the Parole Board and his application for parole was heard on the 23^rd of July 2021. On both occasions the applicant was present before the Board and at the hearing on the 23^rd of July he 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

On the 20^th of September 2015 the applicant together with another man entered the Riverside Hotel.  Both offenders were armed, the applicant with a hammer and the other offender with a pistol. The intention was to rob the hotel. In carrying out that intention the applicant and his co accused threatened harm to the hotel’s occupants, brandished their weapons and the applicant struck, albeit relatively lightly, the hotel manager with the hammer.

While making their escape, and by reason of having crashed their vehicle, the applicant and his co offender entered a private residence and there threatened the occupants for the keys to their vehicle, which they subsequently stole to continue their escape.

The applicant is shortly to turn 29 years of age.  At the time of committing these offences he was aged 25 years and had been offending since committing his first aggravated burglary and stealing when he was 14.

As is often the narrative, the applicant’s offending has been in part the product of his significant and sustained use of illicit substances with his drug use commencing from the age of 13 years.  He has previously been housed at the Ashley Youth Detention Centre and his exposure to events at that institution has also been a factor that has negatively impacted upon his life.

The applicant’s engagement in the past with the Justice system has been poor.  He has had the benefit of Probation and Community Service Orders with poor compliance.  His most recent effort in this respect was under a Probation Order in 2014 and that time he was also put under a suspended sentence.  He comprehensively failed to respond to the Probation Order at any point. He ignored all efforts to contact and engage with him and committed further offences in breach of the suspended sentence.

Despite this past history giving a grim indication of the suitability of the applicant for parole, there have been significant positive indications of the possibility of his reform which have become evident during his custodial term.

The applicant is now classified as minimum security.  His case notes are positive as have been his work reports from his employment as a general hand in the kitchen.  With the exception of a matter of being in a place he was not authorised to be in March this year, the applicant has been largely compliant with the rules and regulations of the prison environment.  The applicant has also engaged in the Equips Aggression and parenting courses as well as with the offender management reintegration team at the prison who described the applicant as having “…maintained steady progress through the prison system which is a big achievement for him, having spent much of his time in custody previously in maximum/medium facilities.”  The applicant has also been assessed as suitable for and commenced the S8 program with arrangements for transition on the program into the community in place.  Reports from that program are that the applicant has responded “exceptionally well”.

The assessment of Community Corrections initially raised concerns regarding his suitability for parole given that he had become institutionalised, noting the periods to date he has spent incarcerated, and the need to address his drug dependency issues. Since the applicant’s commencement on the S8 Program the applicant is now considered suitable for a parole order.

This applicant wants to improve his life.  That is the position put by him to the Board at the hearing of his application. Certainly, he has shown signs during his sentence that this is indeed what he wishes to achieve.  Also of significance is that the applicant has shown a preparedness to engage in programs and with providers who have assisted him address his offending and equip him with the skills to achieve his goal. As evidence also of his determination and capacity to not offend the applicant points to the fact that he spent 5 months out in the community on bail prior to his sentence on these matters without engaging in offending.  He claims his young daughter as being a significant motivating factor for him.

The Board finds that the applicant presents as motivated to reform and that the supervision he will be under during a parole order will provide him with an opportunity to put in place a structure to maintain his abstinence from illicit drug use, and cease offending.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied

• Electronic monitoring

Paroled from 2 August 2021 - 20 May 2024