Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Joshua Noel Frank Parker

28 October 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

In the Matter of an application to the Parole Board by Joshua Noel Frank PARKER

The Background:

Joshua Noel Frank PARKER (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Create common nuisance, Commit an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm, Breach of FVO x7, Destroy Property & Emotional abuse or intimidation.

The applicant became eligible for a parole order from the 08/10/2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 28/10/2022 after the application had been adjourned from the 22/07/2022 due to the lack of suitable accommodation.  The applicant was present at the hearing of the application 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’s offending occurred against his former partner and mother of two of his children. The applicant and his victim had been separated for over a year at the time of his offending behaviour.  The partner was protected at the time by a Family Violence Order.  The applicant’s threatening and violent behaviour occurred in the presence of and at times directly involved his children.  The circumstances must have been very distressing for them all. Ultimately the applicant created a siege situation in the house pouring liquid and threatening attending police to set it alight.  It took 100 minutes and the attendance of approximately 9 members of Tasmania Police and other first responders before the situation resolved, thankfully without further harm.

The applicant has previously come under the supervision of Community Corrections under previously imposed Probation and Community Service Orders.  His compliance on those orders is described as “acceptable” however it is noted that his compliance with the orders have failed to drive any change toward a pro social lifestyle.

The applicant has served his sentence in a compliant manner.  He is described as polite and as interacting well with all staff.  He has worked as a leading hand in the kitchen also to good reports.  The applicant has undertaken the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program (FVOIP) during his sentence as well as the Resilience and Parenting Program. The exit report from the FVOIP program notes that the applicant’s engagement in family violence occurs at times of heightened stress and in the absence of healthy emotional coping and communication skills.  Unfortunately, in the group context of the program the applicant struggled to retain composure and became “easily elevated”.  As a result, his group participation was ceased, and the program was delivered on a one-to-one basis.  Nevertheless, he is described as having made make positive changes to many of his criminal behaviours and patterns and was able to recognise the benefit of a prosocial lifestyle.  However, he continues to hold strong beliefs with respect to his former partner which calls for further counselling intervention and supervision.

In the Circle of Parenting course exit report the applicant is described as “one of the most courageous participants that I have worked with in this program”.  He was open to take on board principles and challenge his own beliefs and thinking.  His desire for ongoing positive change is perhaps reflected in his interest in pursuing post release support.

The applicant has also had benefit from his engagement with SASS given a past history of abuse and trauma which has been identified as contributory to his past offending.  SASS have also described his as having demonstrated “great courage” in the work he has done with them.

To assist in our consideration of the suitability of the applicant for parole an assessment of him with Dr Washington was organised.  In her consequent report Dr Washington notes that the applicant has had a highly traumatic history which has left him with a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  He is described as often conflicted angry and irritable.  As such he is at a high risk for violence in his relationship and for violence generally.  The work that the applicant has done during his sentence reflects however that he is able to positively engage with therapeutic input and will gain from support. He has demonstrated by his compliance with the rules of prison and capacity to peacefully coexist with other inmates that he can engage with others in a positive manner.  Whilst there is a risk of future violence particularly surrounding issues relating to the applicant’s former partner and his access to his children Dr Washington does identify factors protective of further violence including stable accommodation and his capacity for employment. She notes that he will need significant professional support on release.  Given the above involvement with SASS and the Parenting Program the applicant has demonstrated not only an understanding of his needs for professional support but also a willingness to seek it out and engage with it.

Arrangements appear to have been put into place enabling the applicant to have access visits with his children via the Gagebrook/Bridgewater community legal service.  The applicant has also found his participation in painting as a useful tool to relieve pent up feelings of anger.  Whilst concerns remain regarding the applicant’s future risk of violence particularly in the context of his former domestic relationship and access to his children, he demonstrates significant insight into the triggers for his violence in the past and his need for professional assistance to avoid future repetition.  This is not only in his own best interests but also for his children.  Given the significant supports that are currently in place and the applicant’s willingness to engage with them, supervision in the community is suitable.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved.

• Special conditions applied:
• Electronic monitoring
• Mental health care plan

Paroled from 7 November 2022 - 13 August 2023