Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Ashley Luke Haintz

11 February 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Ashley Luke HAINTZ (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Breach of Suspended Sentence and Persistent Family Violence.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 14/02/2022.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 11/02/2022.  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:

At the time of his sentencing for matters of persistent family violence the Honourable Justice Geason described the applicant as an “inherently violent person”.  The hope was expressed that during his custodial term the applicant would work on his rehabilitation by engaging in therapeutic courses addressing his violence.  The applicant appears to have satisfied this wish completing the Gottawanna, Equips Foundation and family violence courses.

In the Equips Foundation course the applicant is described as being initially reserved making it difficult to assess his degree of motivation and insight however as the course progressed it appears the applicant’s active participation increased and he was described as demonstrating empathy and as being supportive of other participants.  The course facilitators assessed the applicant as being in the contemplative stage of change, acting to address his offending risks, taking responsibility for his offending, and displaying empathy towards his victim, her family and friends.

A desire to change and gain insight into his violence was also evident during the applicant’s participation in the family violence treatment program. Assessment at the outset of that program was that the applicant presented a moderate risk for future violent offending.  On the O-DARA scale he scored 9 with over 74% of men in this group committing a new assault on a female partner within an average of five years.  Facilitators in the program concluded that the applicant’s offending occurred during a vulnerable and unstable period in his life when he was unemployed, disengaged and abusing alcohol and drugs.  It is considered that a protective factor against future offending is for the applicant to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Certainly, the applicant has demonstrated exemplary behaviour during his sentence.  He is classified as requiring minimum security and is now housed in the O’Hara cottages suggesting that he is a trusted inmate.  He has worked external to the prison on leave without issue.  The applicant also has the offer of employment upon his return to the community which should add to his stability.

There is no doubt that the applicant’s offending presents a significant concern.  He subjected his partner, who should expect nothing less than his care and love within their relationship, to protracted episodes of violence and deprivation of liberty.  That at times his actions were observable by children, or the public generally failed to dissuade him from his conduct.  He has a criminal history for matters of dishonesty and driving offences and has issues of drug and alcohol abuse.  Nevertheless, his conduct during his sentence and engagement in programs suggest insight and motivation toward change.

Before the Board the applicant admitted that during the first 18 months of his sentence he continued to blame the victim for his actions.  He has since however reached the realisation and understanding that his actions were his responsibility.  His victim was not at fault.  He attributes this new insight to him maturing during his sentence and what he has learnt through his participation in therapeutic courses.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Not to associate with certain named persons
• Not to contact the victim
• Mental Health Care Plan
• Electronic Monitoring

Paroled from 21 February 2022 - 14 August 2023