Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Michael John Jones

8 April 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Michael John JONES (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Wounding, Disorderly Conduct and Aggravated Burglary.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 21/12/2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 08/04/2022 after his application had previously been adjourned by the Board on the 10/12/2021 due to the lack, at that time, of suitable and available accommodation for the application were he to be granted parole.  At the hearing of his application in April the applicant was present, 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:

The applicant’s offending was born from a bitter dispute between his own family and that of his victim. Both families lived in a small rural town.  The applicant was known to verbally abuse his victim and his family and indeed his son was also engaged, presumably with his approval and encouragement, in that behaviour. This antagonism reached the level that on the day of the offence the applicant and his son had taken themselves to the victim’s residence and had verbally abused and threatened the victim. The applicant then returned later in the night, again with his son, and hit the victim with an object having thrown it at him or struck him with whilst it was still in his hand.

Of interest it was noted at the applicant’s sentencing that he appeared to lack remorse and had an obvious issue with anger and aggression as demonstrated by his prior record for matters of violence.  Also, a matter for comment, but not relevant to the sentencing, was the appalling influence the applicant presented for his children and most particularly his son who was present at the crime, who with the applicant’s tacit approval was verbally abusive of the victim, attempted to kick their puppy in the head and who had lied on oath at trial.

The applicant at his parole hearing asserts he was motivated in his actions by the desire to protect his children from the perceived misconduct of the victim toward them however whilst apparently still justifying his behaviour he does claim to have reached an understanding that he cannot react to other members of the community in an aggressive way or take it upon himself to resolve issues and disputes in a violent manner.

The applicant has completed programs during his custodial stay directed toward his offending behaviour. He has undertaken the Equips Aggression group course and the Violence Offender Intervention Program (FVIOP). The Equips Aggression exit report speaks of the applicant’s high standard of engagement in the program with a “willingness to participate sincerely and maturely in all activities, regardless of the difficulty” and that he did so “…was an indication that he took the program and his self-improvement seriously”. The FVOIP exit report notes that the applicant’s risk of reoffending violently reduced following his participation in the program and by the conclusion of the program he was equipped with the skills he needed to enable him to manage better emotions and situations that may in the past have resulted in an explosive and aggressive response.

Complicit in the applicant’s offending behaviour has been his used of alcohol.  Reflecting his motivation toward change he has stayed alcohol abstinent including during the period he was on bail for these offences. At that time, he requested self-imposed bans from the local hotels and RSL.  Alcohol use has apparently also been a factor resulting in the applicant responding poorly to and not engaging in efforts of supervision by Community Correction in the past.  The applicant’s efforts in ceasing alcohol use and imposing bans on himself at the local establishments underlies his recognition that alcohol robs him of the capacity for reasonable and level-headed responses to situations he may find himself in.

The applicant is currently housed in the trusted O’Hara units at the prison with no concerns regarding his behaviour.  He now has suitable accommodation available to him and is supported by Community Corrections as suitable for a parole order.

The Board recognises that the conduct of the applicant has caused significant distress and physical harm to the victim.  The applicant has utilised his custodial period to engage in work to improve on himself and to obtain the tools to avoid in the future resorting to a violent or aggressive response to issue that he will come across in the future.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• Not to contact the victim directly or indirectly

Paroled from 26 April 2022 - 21 November 2023