Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Shaun Andrew Blake

8 April 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Shaun Andrew BLAKE (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Armed Robbery, Attempted Armed Robbery and Aggravated burglary.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 17/04/2022.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 08/04/2022.  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’s story is sadly an all too familiar one. He has had a significant drug habit and has engaged in criminal offending both under the influence of drugs and to fund his addiction.  As noted by the Court when being sentenced for the armed robbery matters, since 1998 he had not spent longer than 12 months outside the prison walls and in the decade prior to sentencing had spent only 9 months in the community in total.  The Court observed that with this history there is a concern as to the level of the applicant’s institutionalisation, which will make his return to the community setting challenging and gives rise to a need for a high level of supports to assist him with that transition.

With his history it is also not surprising that the applicant has been made the subject of supervisory orders in the past, including parole, with those orders consistently being breached including by offending behaviour.  His last attempt at completing a parole order occurred in 2017.  Whilst the applicant is described as starting the order well after approximately one month his behaviour slid backwards, he disengaged and committed crimes including a carjacking.

When not under the influence of illicit substances the applicant has demonstrated the capacity to engage appropriately within the prison environment.  He is classified at minimum security, his case notes describe him as polite and courteous, he has been housed in the O’Hara cottages and worked as a general hand in the prison kitchens.  It is noteworthy, however, that in July 2021 he tested positive for buprenorphine. This resulted in him being removed from O’Hara cottages and the withdrawal of s42 leave he had previously been using to undertake work external to the prison through a community provider. The applicant has, since this incident, been accepted onto the pharmacotherapy program.  The program will be continued upon his return to the community.

The applicant has engaged in therapeutic programs including the Violence Prevention Program, the Equips Aggression Group and the Apsley Program in 2019 all with a view to assist equip him with the tools he needs to eschew drug use and crime.

The applicant has accommodation available to him at a supported residence and arrangements have been made for his access to counselling services to continue if released on parole.  There is further some prospect for the applicant to receive assistance from the Beyond the Wire Program.

The assessment of Community Corrections is that a key issue in the applicant’s capacity to comply with a parole order is drug use.  It is their assessment that the applicant appears more settled in this respect due to having commenced the pharmacotherapy program and that his participation in this program together with the supports provided through his accommodation and through his continued engagement with counselling provide an appropriate support network for his release back into the community setting.

The Board agrees with this assessment.  The applicant’s behaviour in offending in the past has left in its wake innocent citizens traumatised.  The best outcome for both him and the community at large is for him to engage in supports aimed at reintegrating him in a functional and pro social way back into community life and to remain drug free.  The arrangements that are now in place and his involvement in the pharmacotherapy program provide a sound basis for this to occur.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• No contact with registered victims to offending

Paroled from 26 April 2022 - 17 October 2023