Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Matthew Corey O'Brien

10 June 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Matthew Corey O’BRIEN (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Assault x2 & Common Assault.

The applicant became eligible for a parole order from the 06/08/2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 10.6.22.  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.  The application, prior to the time of it being heard, had been adjourned on two occasions due to the absence of suitable accommodation and on one occasion for electronic monitoring assessment.

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 occurred in the context of a domestic relationship.  The victims of his offending were his former partner and her mother, who had come to her aid.  His former partner was particularly vulnerable not only due to the nature of her relationship with the applicant but also due to her physical health.  She suffers from cystic fibrosis.

The applicant’s conduct was egregious.  He slapped his former partner, dragged her by her hair, punched her to the face and choked her.  As her mother attempted to rescue her from the situation she was punched to the face, struck on the elbow and dragged from a vehicle.  The applicant’s volatility and fury had been ignited by a discussion surrounding the access arrangement of the two children of the relationship. Those children were present in the home and witnessed these events.

At sentencing the Court noted that the applicant’s claim of remorse for his conduct was supported by the positive steps he had taken since the assaults including entering early pleas of guilty, not applying for bail, consenting to a family violence order and engaging in therapeutic courses directed to the triggers for his offending behaviour.

In considering the suitability of the applicant for parole the Board have had the benefit of a statement from the applicant’s victim.  That statement provides detail of the applicant’s injuries suffered at the hands of the applicant.  She required eighteen days of hospitalisation and not only suffered from the pain and incapacity of the injuries caused by the applicant’s assault of her but also from the secondary effects of those injuries interfering with her capacity to access her normal treatment for her cystic fibrosis.  Long after the physical injuries have healed the applicant, like many survivors of domestic violence, continue to labour under ongoing psychological effects from the trauma including difficulty sleeping, nightmares and a loss of a sense of safety and security when at home that we all ought to expect to enjoy.

The applicant has a history of engaging in violence.  He has convictions for offences including resisting, threatening and assaulting police officer, and for common assault.  However there is no past criminal history of family violence and a substantial gap in offending behaviour between his previous matters and the imposition of this sentence which may suggest a change had occurred in the applicant which was interrupted by this event.  Also perhaps reflective of this is that his record of past engagement with Community Corrections under supervision orders in the community reveal a failure to complete Community Service Orders imposed in 2012 but the successful completion of a Probation Order in 2015.

The applicant has served his sentence in a compliant manner.  He is rated at minimum security and is described in his case notes as “polite, respectful, willing, well behaved”.  He was offered accommodation in the external O’Hara Cottage, a trusted position, but declined.  The applicant has been employed as a general hand in the kitchen chill room during his incarceration also to good reports.

The applicant has also engaged in therapeutic interventions relevant to his offending.  He has completed the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program, and Brief Interventions.  He has remained on the wait list to undertake the Equips Aggression and Alcohol and Drug Counselling interventions.  It appears that the applicant has engaged well in programs to learn about his triggers to offending and strategies to prevent future repetition including a relapse prevention plan regarding his former drug use.

Suitable accommodation is now available for the applicant were he to be released on a Parole Order. The applicant also is a participant in the Beyond the Wire program and will have the support of that program on his release together with engagement with Connect 42.

On considering all matters it is considered that the applicant is suitable for a period of parole.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• No contact with the victims to the offending directly or indirectly subject to an order of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

Paroled from 21 June 2022 - 6 May 2023