Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by David John Wright

12 March 2021

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

David John Wright (“the applicant”) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 18 years with a non-parole period of 9 years imposed upon his conviction for murder.

The applicant became eligible for consideration for a parole order on 12 December 2019.

The applicant’s appeared before the Parole Board initially in mid 2020 but required a lengthy adjournment due to the absence of suitable and available accommodation. Ultimately the applicant appeared before the Board at its hearing on 12 March 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.

Registered Victims

Yes

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 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 had a lengthy history of attempting parole since his first order on this sentence was granted in December 2013.  That parole order remained in place until revoked approximately three years later in December 2016, due to his drug use.  Parole was again attempted in 2016 but that order was also revoked just shy of a year later also due to drug use.

Third and fourth attempts at parole were made in 2018 and 2019, the 2018 order revoked after only three months for drug use and the 2019 order faring only slightly better, revoked after 6 months for noncompliance and the lack of suitable accommodation.  It has now been 12 months since the applicant has attempted a parole order.  As can see from the above history he has struggled, particularly with the later orders, complying with the requirements of parole and specifically drug abstinence.

The applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment for murder.  A parole order granted now will have a duration of approximately five years. Whilst in the past the applicant has struggled with compliance he has not reoffended and has not harmed the community.  He has been incarcerated for nearly 16 years and his prospects of a functional and safe return to the community would benefit from a period of supervision, control and support as would be provided by a parole order.

The applicant has demonstrated good behaviour in prison achieving a medium low classification and being described as polite, compliant, and self-reliant.  He most recently has undertaken the Smart Recovery course.

Accommodation suitable for the applicant has been identified and is available for him were he to be granted a parole order.  The applicant may also have the benefit of support from the Beyond the Wire program having been the subject of an assessment by them.

The applicant has a lengthy history of drug and alcohol use and abuse.  He dates this use back to when he was 14 years of age.  He understands the negative interaction that this use has had on his life’s journey including the commission of his crime and his inability thus far to comply with previous parole orders.

In their assessment of the applicant Community Corrections have noted that during past supervision periods the applicant has engaged minimally if at all with psychological counselling and that there may be untreated psychological issues that underlie his relapses to drug use.  This coupled with the four previous failed attempts at parole led them to consider the applicant as unsuitable for parole.

Nevertheless, despite this assessment the applicant has demonstrated the capacity to comply for a lengthy period with parole given that he was able to remain in the community on the first order of parole for approximately 3 years.  Whilst he has struggled to maintain compliance and abstinence from drugs nevertheless there remain factors that suggest that the applicant could comply.  He has insight into the negative consequences of his use of drugs and alcohol.  He suggests he is motivated to successfully complete a parole order.  At hearing he asserted he has remained drug and alcohol abstinent since his completion of the Apsley Program.  He notes that it will be beneficial for him that his proposed accommodation is separate from his family and the stressors that have arisen in the past for him in that context.  It is noted that largely he has in recent times been able to serve his sentence in a compliant and self-reliant manner.

In large part the applicant’s ability to become a functional member of society will be benefitted by accessing psychological and other therapeutic inputs in a community setting under supervision.  He has not demonstrated that he poses a significant risk of harm to the community were he to be released under parole supervision noting prior parole periods have not given rise to offending.

The Board’s determination

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied

• To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan;
• Not to enter Zeehan;
• Not to contact directly or indirectly the victims of his offending.

Paroled from 23 March 2021 - 14 December 2026