Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Dylan Leo Victor Lee

9 December 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Dylan Leo Victor LEE (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Manslaughter, Causing grievous bodily harm, Drive whilst disqualified & Failing to stop after accident.

The applicant became eligible for a parole order from the 11/12/2022.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 09/12/2022.  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:

The applicant was 23 years of age when, late at night, he drove his vehicle at excessive speed and inexplicably through a red light in an urban area.  As a result of his actions his vehicle collided with that being driven by Adrian Tudor lawfully and reasonably causing Mr Tudor’s death and significant injury to the applicant’s passenger.  Following the accident, the applicant left the scene failing to render assistance to Mr Tudor or his passenger.

Whilst the applicant had not previously caused such a catastrophe as a result of his driving he does have a criminal history of traffic matters.  This crime was committed whilst he was under a Probation Order with which he was described as engaging well until this event.  His abuse of drugs is a factor contributory to his behaviour.

Except for his involvement in an assault of a prisoner in February 2022 the applicant has demonstrated consistent compliant behaviour whilst serving his sentence.  He is rated as requiring minimum security and has been engaged in employment to good reports.  The applicant has been motivated to engage in therapeutic interventions regarding his risk factors for offending however has remained waitlisted for Alcohol and Drug Counselling, Equips Addiction Group and Resilience. He has been able to access vocational inputs and undertook a horticulture course in 2021 however this was interrupted by his temporary return to Maximum Security in the prison following the assault.  He enrolled in an automotive body skill set course and certificate II in automotive vocational prep in 2019 which he is yet to complete.  With the exception of the use of suboxone in prison approximately two years ago he has remained drug abstinent.

The applicant is described by his planning officer as an “eager participant” in case management. Focus has been given during sessions on the development of pro-social relationships and activities once returned to the community.  He appears future focused and aspires to the obtaining of a qualification as a barber. Certainly, the applicant’s efforts during his sentence support the proposition that he is motivated to change his lifestyle and has the capacity to comply with the conditions of a parole order.

Mr Tudor was simply going about his daily business in a lawful manner when he had the misfortune to encounter the applicant.  His death has impacted many people, not the least his family, for whom he had a positive and central role in their lives.  His loss was felt by many and will continue to impact the lives of his family.  The applicant understands that he has caused this death.  He expresses remorse and regret.  He presents as understanding that his actions have seriously impacted many people and is motivated to change his lifestyle.  This is his first custodial sentence.

The consequences of the applicant’s conduct was grave however there are significant indications that he seeks to change his life and has the ability to do so.  That work toward change will be enhanced by his supervision under a Parole Order.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• Non contact of certain named persons

Paroled from 20 December 2022 - 11 June 2025