Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by L T R

13 May 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

L T R (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Forcible Abduction, Aggravated Assault, Aggravated Sexual Assault x4, Indecent Assault, Rape x2, Possessing Child Exploitation Material, Production of Child Exploitation Material.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 28/08/2021.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 11/05/2022 via video link.  On that occasion the applicant had no objection to the hearing proceeding via video rather than in person 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 now applies for a further period of parole having had a previously granted order revoked through noncompliance with its terms.  Specifically, the applicant was granted a parole order as at the 6.12.2021. As part of that order his movements were electronically monitored, and he was excluded from areas known to be frequented by children including parks and playgrounds.  During his initial parole period the electronic monitoring of the applicant detected him lingering near a playground and a fast-food restaurant in breach of his parole conditions.  When brought back before the Board to explain these breaches the applicant attempted to minimise or deny his actions.  For example, he claimed he came across the playground by chance, and it consisted of only one or two pieces of equipment.  When requested to investigate this further Community Corrections provided photographs of the area which demonstrate a fully equipped playground space. When it was explained to him why these constraints were important to be observed by him given his concession that he continues to have ongoing sexually deviant thoughts involving children he expressed regret for having been “honest” with his supervising officer regarding his thinking rather than understanding that it is in the interests of his rehabilitation and compliance that he maintains honest and open communication with his parole officer.

The applicant now presents to the Board in his current application for parole with the benefit of reflection after his return to the custodial setting.  He fully acknowledges his previous poor decision making.  He states that he failed to appreciate the extent of the restrictions his parole order placed on him and his freedom of movement and asserts that he has the capacity and intent to be fully compliant with those restrictions.  The truth more likely lies in the applicant having had a belief during his previous parole period that, despite the restrictions placed on his movements, he was able to do as he saw fit.  Since he has had to face the Board concerning his decision making during that order which saw the order revoked, he has no doubt been left with a clear understanding as to the precedence he must place on compliance as he goes about his daily activities were he to be given parole again.

The applicant concedes that he has a sexual interest in children.  He knows on an intellectual level that he can not act on that interest. He also has a sexual interest in adults. It is viewed as important by the Board that the applicant not only have pro social support around him but that he also engages in a full way with targeted psychological therapy.  During the last period of parole psychological therapy was difficult for the applicant to source.  It has been established that were the applicant to again be released on a parole order a highly experienced forensic psychologist is willing to provide him with treatment and the applicant has agreed to actively engage in the same.  The fact that he has demonstrated a willingness in the past to talk frankly to his supervising parole officer regarding his thoughts and feelings is a positive factor to his suitability for a further parole period.

The Board have determined that given the arrangement made for psychological treatment, the recognition of the applicant to the need to respect and prioritise his parole conditions and the ongoing capacity of the Board through electronic monitoring to oversight his compliance the applicant is suitable for a further parole order.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Attend treatment with named psychologist and comply with any treatment plan recommended by them
• Electronic monitoring
• Exclusions from certain specified locations

Paroled from 18 May 2022 - 8 October 2024