Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Gary Allen Hind

27 May 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Gary Allen Hind (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon conviction for the crime of murder.

The applicant was granted a parole order in 2007 after his prison sentence was transferred from Queensland to Tasmania in 2001. He remained on parole for a significant number of years despite appearances before the Board each year due to non-compliance with various conditions of his order.  The order was ultimately revoked in March 2021.

The applicant applied again for parole in June 2021, but his application was adjourned by the Board on 11 June 2021 due to lack of suitable accommodation.  He then appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 27 May 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.

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 was convicted of murder on 15 September 1994 in the Queensland Supreme Court and sentenced to life.   His prison sentence was transferred from Queensland to Tasmania at his request and he was received into custody of the Tasmanian Prison Service in 2001.  He became eligible for parole in 2007 and was granted a parole order by the Board in August 2007. In the Board’s decision of 3 August 2007, it was noted that the applicant had been an exemplary prisoner, holding several positions of trust and had demonstrated a clear understanding of his obligations to the community while on parole.

It appears that while the applicant remained on parole from 2007 to 2021, his performance was less than exemplary, as he struggled to maintain compliance with some conditions of his parole order, particularly in relation to alcohol and drug use, failing to provide urine samples when directed and being charged with driving offences involving alcohol.  His parole order was suspended on four occasions during the 14 years he was on parole and was ultimately revoked in on 12 March 2021 due to ongoing non-compliance and avoidance of a parole board warrant.

The applicant is now 66 years of age. Since returning to custody in 2021, the applicant has returned to a pattern of good behaviour. He has attained a minimum classification and is accommodated in the O’Hara units with is no record of internal offending.  He has continued to be employed and is currently working as a senior hand with the maintenance team.

The applicant has suitable accommodation and will be provided with additional support from Beyond the Wire.  The accommodation is close to family members including the applicant’s long-term partner.

Concerns remain regarding the applicant’s ability to maintain compliance with the conditions of parole and the capacity of Community Corrections and the Board to monitor his longstanding issue with substance abuse, particularly consumption of alcohol which was a significant problem for the applicant during his last period of parole. The applicant has a history of missing or actively avoiding urinary drug screens on the previous parole order and at the time he returned to custody in 2021, Community Corrections records indicate he had not provided a sample for urinalysis in the preceding 3 years. There was some suggestion by the applicant of a health issue that affected his ability to provide samples but there is no record of this being addressed by the applicant with a medical practitioner.

When challenged at interview regarding his non-compliance and what would be different if granted parole, the applicant suggested the closeness to his family, children and grandchildren was a significant factor, in addition to ongoing support through Beyond the Wire.  The applicant maintains he has been abstinent from illicit substances since returning to custody although he has not been subject to urinalysis drug screening. Although risks remain for the applicant these must be balanced against the potential benefit of the existence of pro-social factors and additional support, along with the capacity of the Board to order electronic monitoring which has not been available previously.

The applicant is subject to a life sentence and ongoing imprisonment is unlikely to achieve any rehabilitative outcomes over and above what the applicant will be able to access in the community with support and supervision. Despite poor compliance on his previous parole order, the length he remained on parole demonstrates he has some capacity and understanding of what is required to succeed on parole.

On balancing all factors, the Board is of the view the applicant is suitable for a further opportunity for parole.

The Board’s determination:

Parole Granted

Special conditions applied:

• Must comply with electronic monitoring conditions

Paroled from 6 June 2022 until the term of his natural life