Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Joshua Edward Darling

29 April 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Joshua Edward Darling (‘the applicant’) is serving a sentence of imprisonment for conviction on charges of aggravated burglary, burglary, stealing, firearms offences, and several drug and driving offences.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 2 May 2022.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 29 April 2022.

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.

Registered victim:

No registered victim

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 a relatively young offender, with significant mental health, cognitive functioning and drug dependency issues reportedly stemming from a complex trauma history during childhood. His problem with drugs is reflected in a lengthy criminal history both as a youth and adult, including numerous offences of dishonesty.

In comments on passing sentence, Brett J stated that despite the applicant’s poor compliance with community-based sentencing options in the past, he accepted that while in prison, the applicant appeared to have reflected on his future and the need to lead a “law abiding life” away from drugs.

The applicant’s time in custody does however demonstrate a struggle to comply with prison regulations, with a several internal offences recorded involving possession of contraband items and poor behaviour in the past 12 months.  This is perhaps reflective of his vulnerability as a youthful offender and reported tendency to be easily led and influenced by others.  The applicant was recently subject to a serious assault while in custody which left him with serious injuries and further cognitive and memory difficulties.

Case notes indicate he has been attempting to improve his behaviour in custody and had attained a medium classification only to be regressed to maximum in late 2021 due to the internal offending.

Although the applicant has not had access therapeutic programs while in custody, he recently commenced individual alcohol and drug counselling and has connected with a counselling and support service in relation to his trauma history. At interview, when discussing his offending, the applicant was able to recognise his tendency to be led by others and showed some insight into the strategies he would need to use to avoid being susceptible to pro-criminal influences.

As a young offender, the prospect of rehabilitation and providing the best opportunity for the applicant to engage in appropriate options is a significant consideration for the Board.  As the Court commented at the time of sentencing, additional to this is the need for appropriate supports to be in place in the community to assist the applicant along that path.

The applicant has been assessed as being eligible for additional social support through the Beyond the Wire program, will be provided with peer support through the Salvation Army Bridge Program and has appropriate accommodation in the community to provide an environment for him to continue to engage in counselling commenced while in custody.  Additionally, the applicant is reportedly eligible for accommodation and other lifestyle support through the NDIS which he can be assisted to pursue if released into the community.

Community Corrections have assessed the applicant as at a high risk of reoffending due to his complex needs. However, in their view the applicant would benefit from the intensive supervision and support a parole order can provide, helping him to gain access to appropriate supports to achieve stability in the community.

The Board concurs with this view and is satisfied that the risks identified can be effectively managed through the level of supervision and case management provided by a parole order in addition to the imposition of electronic monitoring of the conditions imposed.

The Board’s determination:

Parole Granted

Special conditions applied:

• Submit to electronic monitoring

Paroled from 9 May 2022 - 12 February 2023