Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Anton Maxwell Crawford

11 November 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Anton Maxwell CRAWFORD (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Common Assault x2, Emotional abuse or intimidation x2, Breach of PFVO x10, Injure Property, Breach of Interim FVO x82, Breach of Bail conditions x2.

The applicant became eligible for a parole order from the 09/10/2022.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 11/11/2022.  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 offending which is the subject of this sentence occurred in the context of a domestic relationship.  It was fuelled by the applicant’s jealousy and reveals his difficulty in reasonably managing his emotions.  The incidents no doubt struck significant fear in the victim who was entitled to feel nurtured and secure rather than belittled and threatened by her partner.

The applicant’s criminal history reflects that the applicant has engaged in significant offending since a youth including for matters of dishonesty and violence.  He also has a prior record for violence to intimate partners having been convicted in 2018 for assault and breaches of a family violence order in relation to a prior partner.  This suggests that the difficulties that the claimant experienced in managing his emotions was not on this occasion an isolated incident.

Also of concern with respect to the suitability of the applicant for a parole order is his failure in the past to have engaged compliantly with supervision orders. Whilst he completed a Parole Order in 2017 the order was not without issues with the applicant breaching the order and being required to address the Parole Board on two occasions.  He was noncompliant with subsequent Probation and Community Service Orders. The applicant has not engaged in any therapeutic programs whilst serving his sentence and accordingly has not demonstrated that he has made an effort to address his offending behaviour and most significantly his violence in domestic relationships.  The applicant appears, however, to have engaged positively with planning attending a number of case management appointments where he has demonstrated an openness and willingness to discuss his past offending and an understanding of his risk factors for future offending.  He is described as presenting with strong “pro-social values”, as respectful of his victims and wanting to undertake the family violence program to reduce the risk of a repetition of his behaviour in the future.

The applicant has been able to demonstrate a capacity for complying with the rigid rules and regulations of the prison environment.  He has received good behavioural reports and not engaged in internal offending behaviour. He has maintained employment as a cleaner and general hand in the kitchen.

The Board had the benefit of a forensic mental health report of Dr Rajan Darjee, consultant forensic psychiatrist, which was before the Court when the applicant was sentenced on these matters.  In that report Dr Rajan notes the applicant has a history of chronic and significant trauma and complex post traumatic stress disorder.  There are also borderline personality traits. Engagement with mental health services in the community and with the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program is recommended.  The applicant has suitable accommodation available to him if released under parole.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• Mental health care plan
• To undertake the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program
• No contact with certain named person

Paroled from 21 November 2022 - 20 May 2023