Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Rose-Lee Clarke

13 May 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Rose-Lee CLARKE (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon her conviction for Aggravated Armed Robbery, Aggravated Burglary x2, Stealing.  Her sentence has also been extended as a result of the revocation of a previous parole order.

The applicant has been eligible for a parole order from the 27/10/2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 13/05/2022, her application having been previously adjourned in February due to the absence of suitable accommodation for her at that time.  At the hearing of the application the applicant was present and was invited to provide any information she had in support of her application and made herself 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:

With the exception of some youth justice matters the applicant had no relevant criminal history prior to committing the crimes for which she is currently serving her sentence. Those crimes were significant involving entry into two homes one of which was occupied by the homeowner who was elderly and alone.  The crime was committed by three women in total, one of them was armed with a hammer and the applicant with a metal baseball bat.  These implements were used to threaten and assault the victim.  Such extremity of behaviour with such significant consequences in terms of the deprivation of liberty of each of the offenders through their capture and custodial sentences all for a six pack of beer and a mobile phone.  The events of that evening were no doubt a cause of significant fear, pain and distress for the occupant and would have irrevocably shattered the sense of comfort and security he would have previously felt in his own home.

The applicant has, from an early stage, expressed horror for her actions.  How she came to be committing crime let alone a criminal act of such seriousness most likely lies in her use and abuse of drugs specifically Ice which she became entrenched with following a 2019 relationship breakdown.

The applicant has previously been afforded the privilege of a parole order enabling her to serve the remainder of her sentence within the community in greater comfort and with considerably more freedom than in the custodial setting.  The order commenced in September 2020 and was in operation for close to one and a half years before it was revoked due to the applicant’s ongoing breach of the order by curfew breaches, alcohol use and her lack of engagement with supervision.  The applicant has also lost her accommodation and there was an absence at that time of any suitable alternative.

Following her return to the prison environment the applicant has demonstrated good behaviour being described in her case notes as “mostly polite” and “well behaved”. She has worked as a leading hand in the kitchen with her work being described as excellent.  During her engagement with her planning officer within the prison she has expressed a motivation to succeed on parole with her children being a strong motivating factor for her.  She recognises the need to remain drug and alcohol abstinent and has engaged with alcohol and will continue that counselling in the community setting. Since her return to custody the applicant has also engaged in a dialectical behavioural therapy which she states has assisted her in gaining perspective and to equip her with skills to assist her withstand stressors and the temptation to return to drug use.

The applicant has now secured suitable accommodation for her release on parole.  Given the changes that she has implemented since her last period on parole it is the finding of the Board that the applicant is again suitable for a parole order.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• No contact with certain named persons
• Not to enter defined areas
• No contact with the victim
• To obtain a mental health plan
• Electronic monitoring

Paroled from 24 May 2022 - 31 March 2023