Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Allan James Blackberry

14 October 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Allan James BLACKBERRY (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Stealing x7, Possess controlled plant or its products, Possess a controlled drug, Possess an implement or instrument with intent to commit a crime or an offence x2, Unlawful possession of property x4, Aggravated burglary, Fail to Appear and Possess controlled plant or its products, Stealing x3, Selling controlled drug, Possess a controlled drug, Aggravated burglary, Fail to appear, Stealing and Unlawful possession of property.

The applicant became eligible for a parole order from the 17/08/2022.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 05/08/2022 but his application could not be heard until the 14/10/2022 due to the absence of suitable accommodation.  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 of 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 lengthy criminal history and as such has come under several past community-based supervision orders monitored through Community Corrections.  His compliance with and engagement during those Orders can provide some clarity as to the risk that the applicant may present for failing to comply if released on a Parole Order.  In that sense the applicant’s history under supervision raises significant concern for his capacity to comply with Parole.  He has in the past been subject to supervision, including a Drug Treatment Order, however his compliance and engagement has been poor with instances of drug use, offending behaviour and disengagement being recorded.

Despite this, the applicant has demonstrated the capacity to comply with rules and regulations.  His behaviour whilst serving his sentence is described positively.  He has been constructively employed in the laundry and there have been no instances of internal offending behaviour in the past 12 months.  He has engaged with planning officers whilst at the prison and is described as presenting as polite and motivated to address his substance misuse and criminal behaviour.  It is noted that the applicant has a learning disability and is easily led by others to engage in drug use and criminal behaviour.  Some efforts have been made to link him with the NDIS which has resulted in his approval for funding which has a focus to support his engagement in pro social activities and to transition to independent living.

A further support available to the applicant if he were to be afforded a Parole Order on this occasion is that he has obtained supported accommodation.

The applicant has not engaged in any therapeutic input during this sentence.  He has attempted to get access to drug and alcohol counselling but it was not available to him.  He continues to want to engage in such counselling and is looking at undertaking counselling through Holyoake.

The applicant maintains he is motivated to change.  He points to the length of his current sentence as providing a “wake up call” for him. His criminal behaviour has resulted in his separation from his family and he is motivated to resume and build upon his links with them.

Given this motivation, the compliant manner in which he has served his sentence and the extent of support and services that are currently available to him upon his release, a Parole Order is appropriate.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved.

Paroled from 24 October 2022 - 24 April 2023