Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Kylie Jane Hack

10 June 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Kylie Jane HACK (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon her conviction for Manslaughter, Perverting Justice, Stealing.

The applicant became eligible for a parole order from the 19/03/2022.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 10/06/2022 after the matter had been adjourned from the 11/03/2022 to enable the Board to obtain a report about the applicant from a psychologist.  At the hearing 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 her 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:

On the 16/09/2016 Ms Meades was killed at a unit in Clarendon Vale.  The applicant was also present at the unit and due to various circumstances engaged with the two men also there in an intent to assault Ms Meades. She did in fact assault her by punching her, grappling with her, pulling her hair and striking her head on the floor. At some point the intention of one or both of the men at the unit became to kill Ms Meades and she was struck to the head with a golf putter and stabbed multiple times to the neck with scissors. Ms Meades died as a result.

The applicant was sentenced on the basis that it was not her intent to kill Ms Meades and that she had become disturbed as to what was happening and had withdrawn and locked herself in the bathroom at the unit and was there when Ms Meades was killed. She had, however, not responded to Ms Meades’ calls for help nor provided her with any assistance and subsequently stole her debit cards, attempting to use them to purchase items.

Drug abuse played a central role in this matter.  Those that participated were engaged in the sale and use of drugs.  The applicant was affected by drugs and alcohol at the time of the offence.  As noted by the Court at her sentencing this was “…yet another example, of the corrupting and destructive influence of illicit drugs, and the association between drugs, such as amphetamine, crystal methampthetamine or poly-drug use, and serious crimes of violence.”

By the time she was sentenced for these matters the applicant had been held in prison on remand for three years.  During that time, she had detoxified from her drug abuse and had undergone a material change in behaviour which was commented on by the Court at sentence.  The Court noted that she had engaged in prison programs and with psychological counselling and that her behaviour had matured over the period.  It was accepted that she had real remorse for her actions and shame that she did nothing to prevent Ms Meades’ death.  This is on the background of a significant record of prior convictions predating this event.  These were for matters typically of dishonesty including stealing and burglary however there were also previous matters of assault.

Previous efforts of engagement on community based orders in the past have been unsuccessful with orders breached and the applicant engaging in offending behaviour at times whilst under supervision.  This is obviously a matter of some concern when reflecting on whether the applicant has the capacity and motivation to comply with the requirements of a parole order upon return to the community.  In this regard it is noted positively that the applicant has been able to serve her sentence compliantly.  She has achieved minimum classification and has worked as a Senior Hand in grounds maintenance to positive reports.  He last breach of the rules occurred in October 2021 and involved trafficking with another prisoner.

As noted at sentencing the applicant has engaged in therapeutic interventions available to her in the prison. She has continued with alcohol and drug counselling, engaged with the Dialectic Behavioural Program and completed various vocational courses which should strengthen her capacity to engage in employment when returned to the community.

The Board’s consideration of the suitability of the applicant for a parole order was assisted by the report of Dr Amy Washington, psychologist, dated 12/05/2022. Following her assessment of the applicant, Dr Washington expressed the opinion that the applicant’s greatest risk on her return to society will be to engage in impulsive and aggressive behaviour. This is on a background of the applicant’s exposure to violence as a child.  She has, in the past, engaged with a cohort where violence is accepted. This together with personality traits that seek out attention and approval, and an entrenched pro-criminal attitude have enabled her to act as she did during her offending.  There remains a risk where these elements will lead her to acting aggressively in the future.  However, it appears that she has matured during her sentence and has expressed an understanding and insight into the negative of this behaviour.  As noted by Dr Washington “She has entrenched pro-criminal beliefs that have served to justify her behaviour in the past Ms Hack was able to recognise this during interview and identified that it needs to be an area of focus and change in the future.  Ms Hack’s environment and association in the future will play an important role in her ability to achieve cognitive and behavioural change”.  Noting the future risk of impulsive, highly emotional violent reaction Dr Washington concludes that protective factors for future violence will be the stability of the applicant’s social environment, supports and her engagement in activity.  The applicant’s supervision whilst on parole can assist the claimant focus on and achieve a pro social environment and engagement in activities.

In the assessment of Community Corrections the applicant is suitable for a parole order.  They specifically note that the applicant has no cognitive behavioural therapy options available to her whilst imprisoned. Her ongoing work addressing her offending would be assisted by her engaging in such therapy, which can be facilitated on her release from prison.

The Parole Board note the work that the applicant has undertaken on her self improvement whilst in custody.  Her conduct around the death of Ms Meades was reprehensible.  The impact of the death of Ms Meades for not only herself but also those that loved and cared for her, and the horror of the hours she must have spent in pain and fear before her death is recognised by the Board. However the applicant presents as future focused, has concrete plans to remain drug free and usefully engaged in employment on her return to the community.  She has demonstrated by the manner in which she has served her sentence not only the intent to change but also a capacity to do so.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Not to associate with her co offenders
• To obtain and comply with a mental health plan

Paroled from 20 June 2022 - 19 March 2025