Department of Justice

Parole Board

www.tas.gov.au
Contact  |  Accessibility  |  Disclaimer

Brown, Robert Maxwell

Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Robert Maxwell Brown

11 March 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Robert Maxwell Brown (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a cumulative sentence of imprisonment imposed upon conviction for assault, wounding, injure property, breach of a family violence order (numerous), drive whilst disqualified and firearms offences.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 20 August 2021.

The applicant’s initial application was adjourned at the Board’s hearing on 20 August 2021 to allow time for the applicant to engage with therapeutic intervention and address his behaviour in custody.

The applicant again appeared before the Board in respect of his application on 11 March 2022 and on that occasion the applicant 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 had been 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 punish for the criminal wrongdoing.

Consideration:

The applicant is no stranger to the custodial setting, having served several custodial sentences in relation to his offending in the past 10 years.

His prior history reflects a significant number of offences of dishonesty and violence, both as a youth and adult and appears inextricably linked to his problematic alcohol consumption that commenced as a teenager.  The applicant has previously had the benefit of parole orders in 2014 and 2017 but both were revoked due to new offending.

The applicant is currently housed in the medium security prison. Case notes reflect the applicant has a history of internal offending and has struggled with compliance in the custodial setting. Indeed, when the applicant last appeared before the Board on 20 August 2021, his application for parole was adjourned and the Board recommended the applicant concentrate on improving his behaviour and engage in therapeutic counselling in relation to his problematic use of alcohol.

Updated case notes reflect that despite 2 minor internal offences in early 2022, the applicant has in fact improved his behaviour in custody, reflected in the progression of his classification from maximum to medium security. Unfortunately, due to waitlisting the applicant has not had access to any therapeutic intervention but has expressed a desire to engage with alcohol and drug counselling if released to parole.

His nominated accommodation has been assessed as suitable and prosocial and suitable for electronic monitoring if this was imposed as a condition of parole.

In previous reports prepared for the Board, Community Corrections have raised concerns about the applicant capacity to comply with the strict conditions of parole, given his poor history of compliance and lack of engagement with any interventions on previous parole orders. Additionally, the applicant was convicted of breach of an existing family violence order while incarcerated, further demonstrating his struggle to comply with orders both in the community and in custody.

However, in the most recent pre-parole report, Community Corrections acknowledge that the applicant has in fact improved his behaviour in custody and continues to express motivation to engage in appropriate intervention.

On interview by the Board, the applicant acknowledged that on previous parole orders, lack of structure and boredom was an issue, and he had lapsed back into excessive alcohol consumption and subsequent offending.  He expressed a desire to again be supported by the structure a parole order can provide and engage in alcohol and family violence counselling. He expressed motivation to re- engage with his children, build on recent prison visitation with them and pursue appropriate avenues to reconnect with his 5-year-old daughter from a previous relationship.

While Community Corrections continue to hold concerns regarding the applicant’s history of compliance, they have recommended the applicant be granted a period of parole, to allow his risk of re-offending to be properly managed with appropriate supports in the community.  Additionally, the applicant has been assessed as suitable for electronic monitoring of his parole conditions which would assist in management of identified risks.

The Board accepts the recommendation.

The Board’s determination

Parole Granted

Special conditions applied

  • Subject to electronic monitoring
  • Not attend any licenced premises except with the prior approval of a probation officer.

Paroled from 23 March 2022 - 28 October 2022