Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Aaron James Irwin

27 May 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Aaron James Irwin (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 24 months imposed upon conviction on charges of aggravated burglary, burglary, stealing and computer related fraud.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 3 May 2022.

The applicant initially appeared before the Board at the Board’s hearing on 29 April 2022, but his application was adjourned awaiting the outcome of outstanding charges in the Magistrates Court. The applicant then appeared at the hearing on 27 May 2022 and on that occasion he 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 is 31 years old with a lengthy recorded history including offences of violence and dishonesty, similar to his current index offending. He had an unstable and disruptive upbringing and was subject to significant violence along with his siblings at the hands of his stepfather until he left home at 13 and entered state care. Unfortunately, he was also suffered abuse while in the state system. Complicit in his offending is his addiction to methylamphetamine which commenced around this time and led quite quickly to offending, predominantly involving offences of dishonesty.

He has sought assistance in the past with his substance abuse, moving to New South Wales at one point although ultimately returning to Tasmania, but despite periods of employment and abstinence he has struggled to control his addiction. Prior to entering custody for the current offending, he was on the suboxone program and has continued with treatment in custody. At sentencing the Court recognised some prospects for the applicant’s reform.

During his custodial sentence, the applicant has struggled to comply with prison regulations, with a significant number of behaviour related internal offences occurring in the last 6 months of 2021.  This led to the applicant’s regression in classification to maximum, which has limited his ability to access therapeutic programs.

Notably however, the applicant commenced trauma-based counselling in late 2021 and save for one internal offence relating to accidental damage to a chair in his cell, no further internal offending has occurred.  The applicant is employed as a wardsman, and case notes reflect generally positive behaviour with staff. A report from the counselling provider indicates the applicant was aware of his use of drugs as a way of coping with memories of childhood trauma and expressed desire not to continue on this trajectory. The report mentioned the applicant’s motivation for change was his young three-year-old son and partner and the applicant reiterated this at interview.

There are some protective factors for the applicant which give rise to prospects of rehabilitation. He has suitable accommodation, and strong family support from his immediate family, including his mother and brothers.  He has the possibility employment with one of his siblings and is engaged with counselling for complex trauma, in addition to substance abuse counselling with SETAC.

Community Corrections have assessed the applicant as requiring a high level of intervention but consider him suitable for a parole order.  The applicant expressed recognition that the biggest risk for him is relapse but presented as motivated to address his past trauma and substance abuse to allow him to be there for his son.

While there remain risks for the applicant, his recent engagement with additional support and willingness to continue this in the community suggest a parole order provides the best opportunity for him to continue a positive path and reintegrate into the community.

The Board is satisfied the strict conditions of a parole order, including the imposition of electronic monitoring will assist in management of identified risks and deem the applicant suitable for parole.

The Board’s determination:

Parole Granted

Special conditions applied:

• Must submit to electronic monitoring

Paroled from 6 June 2022 - 18 April 2023