Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Susan Blyth Neill-Fraser

16 September 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Susan Blyth NEILL-FRASER (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon her conviction for Murder.

The applicant became eligible for a parole order from the 19/08/2022.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board initially on the 05/08/2022, at which time the application was adjourned to enable reports that were at that time outstanding to be received.  The application was heard by the Board at its meeting on the 16/09/2022.  On that occasion the applicant was present at the hearing and was invited to provide any information she had in support of her application and made herself available for questioning by the Board.

A pre-parole report prepared on behalf of the Board was read to the applicant prior to her 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:

On the 27^th of October 2010 the applicant was sentenced to 26 years of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years, subsequently reduced, on appeal, to a sentence of 23 years and a non-parole period of 13 years.  The sentence was imposed upon her conviction for the murder of her husband, Robert Chappell.  The effect of the sentence, as adjusted on appeal, was that she became eligible to be considered for parole from the 19th of August 2022.

Effectively by mandating a non-parole period the sentencing and appeal courts of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, required, at a minimum, the applicant to remain in a custodial environment for 13 years.  Once that period is served the question can then be asked as to whether the remainder of the sentence should be served outside the custodial setting and back within the community.  In responding to that question, the Parole Board is uniquely placed.  It can look at the offender at the time of parole eligibility, rather that at the time of sentence and informed by matters including the manner in which the custodial period has been served, the inmate’s attitude to the offending behaviour, what personal growth, maturation and therapeutic intervention has occurred over the passage of time,  can assess whether community interests lie in the release of the offender to serve the rest of sentence amongst them or for the offender to remain in a custodial environment.

Commonly the suitability of an applicant for parole will be informed by the level of risk they may present on release to themselves and others, the opportunities that may be present for their support to build on a motivation for change and the existence of specific protective and/or risk factors for future offending.

In considering parole suitability the Parole Board receives a vast array of information.  In this matter the information considered by the Board, in addition to the appearance of the applicant before the Board at the hearing of her application on the 05/08/2022, included the following material:

1. The applicant’s written application for parole;
2. Victim impact statement of Tim Chappell, son of the applicant’s victim, in the form of correspondence written by him to the Victim’s Assistance Unit and passed onto the Board;
3. Comments on passing sentence;
4. Decisions of the Supreme Court of Tasmania;
5. Neill- Fraser v Tasmania [2012] TASSC 2
6. Neill-Fraser v Tasmania (no2) [2019] TASSC 11
7. Neill-Fraser v Tasmania [2019] TASSC 10
8. Neill-Fraser v Tasmania [2021] TASSCA 12
9. Record of prior convictions;
10. Prison summary;
11. Prison episode summary;
12. Pre-Parole Report.

The applicant’s action of murdering her husband has captured public attention for several reasons.  Mr Chappell’s remains have not been found. The applicant has consistently and voraciously maintained her innocence publicly through her family and supporters and over the years through several processes in the Courts.  She presents as a well-spoken and educated lady of mature years and somewhat inconsistently with the common perception of a person who can, in a premeditated and calculated fashion, kill another.  She is, regardless of her denial of guilt, appearance and manner, a convicted murderer, and the assessment of her suitability for parole has been made on that basis.

The applicant’s denial of guilt consequently means that she, as she did at the time of her sentencing, presents without remorse and has not assisted authorities or Mr Chappell’s family to locate his body.  These factors must be weighed with all others when considering the applicant’s suitability for parole.

The applicant has no relevant criminal history.  She is 68 years of age and has demonstrated in the past an attitude and behaviour that has been pro social and compliant with the mores and rules of society. Whilst serving her sentence of imprisonment she has engaged positively with her fellow inmates and the authorities, been assessed as requiring minimum security and been productive in the prison gardens.  The applicant has been somewhat hindered by a medical condition that has resulted in her increasing need to rely on a wheelchair for mobility.  She has breached prison regulations on two occasions, once in November 2017 when she was found in possession of unauthorised items including foodstuffs and makeup and again in September 2021 when she breached prison security by releasing information of prison processes to a “blogger” for publication in the context of describing what her usual day in prison was like.  Otherwise, she has presented as compliant, engaged and polite inmate.

The applicant has supportive and suitable accommodation available to her upon release.  The accommodation is stable and available to her for the duration of her parole order.  She has further been assessed as suitable for a parole order by Community Corrections who note that their case management of her will involve linking her with appropriate supports, including psychiatric input, upon her release.

The death of Robert Chappell has been a devastating blow for his children and for that matter a significant loss to his extended family, friends, and colleagues.  The burden of their grief has however been made more onerous by the ongoing media interest on his death and focus on the applicant. The Board have had the benefit of the insights of Robert Chappell’s son in the context of the parole application who whilst reflecting that he “still miss him in many ways” and “..often saddened that my own children were too young to remember him”, also recognises that the applicant does not pose any risk of significance to the community.

The crime for which the applicant has been convicted and in respect of which she is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment is grave.  The taking of the life of another is repugnant to the standards by which we as a modern society live our lives.  If afforded a parole order the applicant will remain serving her sentence but doing so in a community as opposed to a custodial setting.  Her lack of criminal history, the way she has served the custodial portion of her sentence and the availability of stable and supportive accommodation on release attest to the likelihood that the applicant will, once in the community, comply with society’s rules and expectations.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• To obtain and comply with a mental health plan
• To not contact named person directly or indirectly

Paroled from 4 October 2022 - 19 August 2032