Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Rodney Gene Crosswell

13 May 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Rodney Gene CROSSWELL (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Stealing, Armed Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Unlawfully setting fire to property & Perverting Justice, Escape, Aggravated Burglary, Stealing, Stealing a firearm, Unlawfully injuring property x2 and Assault Police Officer.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 14/07/2019.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 13/05/2022.  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 has a relatively lengthy history of parole orders.  A parole period was granted in October 2017 which had a slow start due to extradition issues that were present at the time.  Eventually, however, the order was revoked due to new offending. A further parole period was granted in July of 2021 and the applicant appeared to progress well on that order. He was engaging with supervision and had transitioned back into family life however in October 2021 allegations were made as to further offending and the order was revoked in November of 2021. Subsequently the allegation made against him of stealing was dropped and the hearing in respect of an assault matter had to be aborted due to the failure of witnesses to attend the hearing.

The applicant has a long history of offending.  He has lived a lifestyle marked by violence, drug use and dishonesty since a child. Yet it is clear that he is striving to make a better life for himself and his family.  He is, as he says, a work in progress.  He has managed to build upon his past failures sustaining longer periods of compliant and pro social behaviour whilst in the community. He has obtained full time permanent on his last parole period and which remains available to him upon his future release.  He is future focused on obtaining his excavator licence and complete a traineeship.

There is little doubt that the applicant is genuine in his desire to reform and lead a positive and pro social lifestyle.  He clearly wants to return to his work and family.  Community Corrections note that he would be benefited by the supervision and support of a parole order in working toward this change.  His accommodation remains suitable and supportive and the high level of engagement of both him and his partner on past parole periods suggests that parole supervision remains an important tool for him to effect the lifestyle changes that he is striving toward.

The Board notes that on each past period of parole the applicant’s compliance has improved and the high level of his engagement demonstrates his motivation to lead a pro social lifestyle.  A further period of parole will provide the support and supervision needed by the applicant to make the necessary changes to his life.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Obtain a mental health care plan
• No contact directly or indirectly with the victims
• Electronic monitoring

Paroled from 24 May 2022 - 12 June 2026