Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by William Henry Richardson

8 April 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

William Henry RICHARDSON (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for an act intended to cause grievous bodily harm.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 05/09/2020.

In mid-2017, well prior to becoming eligible for parole, the applicant applied to the Board under the Corrections Act 1997, s70 to be released on parole due to the existence of special circumstances.  The special circumstances identified by the applicant at that time were his legal representation was inadequate, he was being prevented from providing financially for his children and because he “no longer feel traumatised and victimised by the legal system” and was a “better person”.  The application was refused by the Board.

Since becoming eligible to be considered for a parole order the applicant has made three applications for parole.   The first two applications were refused by the Board for similar reasons, and largely because of a concern of the Board that the applicant had yet to fully understand and take responsibility for his past behaviours and thereby presented a risk of repeating those behaviours in the context of a future relationship or toward his former wife and family.

The applicant applied for parole a third time, that application first coming before the Board on the 20/08/2021.  At that time the Board did not refuse the application but adjourned it to the 8/04/2022 requesting that during the intervening period he work on building insight into his behaviour and the impact of it on his victims.

The applicant, however, came before the Board on the 03.09.21.  He wished to withdraw his application.  He was requested to appear before the Board to ensure that this was indeed his wishes given that if he reapplied any future application would not be dealt with prior to the 08.04.22.   It was made accordingly clear that starting an application afresh would not circumvent the previous decision of the Board.  Considering that position the applicant decided to not withdraw the application.

The applicant accordingly appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 08.04.22.

Pre-parole reports prepared on behalf of the Board were read to the applicant prior to his appearance at the hearings to which they related.

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 crime was committed in a public place, a supermarket, in full view of his children and regardless of a then operant Family Violence Order.  In that context he armed himself with a tomahawk and struck his former wife with multiple blows, when it was still bagged, which he continued once she had been knocked to the ground by the force of his attack.

The existence of a protective order, the risk of criminal prosecution for his actions and imprisonment, the distress to his children and to other witnesses, and the pain and terror he caused his former wife did not dissuade him from acting as he did.

Since his conviction on these matters and in his engagements with the Parole Board, the applicant has sought to minimise or explain his conduct by reference to his needs.  He asserts his attack was unplanned, yet one would have to conclude that by the time of his decision to purchase a tomahawk having spotted his wife and children at the shopping centre, he did have an intention to at least threaten, if not act with, violence.

There are some positive features.  The applicant has no criminal record of relevance.  He had sustained over his lifetime, to this act, a productive lifestyle engaging positively in work and recreational pursuits and has served his sentence in a compliant manner.   He has also engaged in therapeutic and vocational courses during his sentence including the family violence offender intervention program and had the opportunity for resocialisation leave in the community which he undertook without incident.

The applicant has good prospects for employment and has stable accommodation available to him. It appears he also has supportive family and friends.  There is nothing in the way he has served his sentence, nor a prior engagement with Community Corrections, that would suggest that he would have difficulty per se with complying with the conditions of a parole order.  However, the fact that his offending occurred in breach of a Family Violence Order implies that his capacity to comply with and observe the conditions of an order may be reduced when the order is in the way of what he perceives as his entitlement, priorities and needs.

The background to the applicant’s offending involved a difficult separation from his wife and alienation from his children which unsurprisingly placed significant stress upon him.  Not many, when faced with this adversity, would respond as he did.  This may suggest that he has not had to face many situations in the past where his needs and wants have been questioned or have not been met.  In some respects this was evident in his interactions with the Board when hearing his previous and the current applications for parole.  Rather than undertaking any self-analysis or achieving insight, the applicant railed against the view that he lacked understanding of and accountability for his deficiencies which had led to his offending.  His sense of grievance resulted in letters to Community Corrections, the Director of Prisons and the Board claiming he had been unfairly treated and threatening public exposure.  He asserted some sort of political interference had attached to his matter.  All claims patently untrue and reflecting an obstinate reluctance of the applicant to take stock of himself.

The extent to which the applicant engaged in abusive or controlling behaviours within his domestic relationship preceding and up to his attack on his partner his unclear.  The applicant denies any past pattern of abusive behaviour and indeed had no prior relevant criminal record.  His former wife and victim does, however, recount a lengthy history of the applicant being demanding, threatening and emotionally abusive within the relationship.

The most significant question before the Board is the risk that the applicant continues to present to his victim and others that may be associated with her, and of reoffending. To assist in the assessment of this risk a Psychological Assessment Report was obtained.  In that report the psychologist expressed the opinion that the applicant is sensitive to situations that challenge his self-belief and is vulnerable to feelings of anger and losing control in circumstances where he feels powerless and is thus at risk of engaging in future aggressive behaviour in a relationship context.  Given the conflict in the accounts of historical abuse and control the extent of this risk is uncertain.  To manage risk the psychologist recommends further therapeutic intervention to address his “personality style, coping skills and patterns of behaviour in relationships” and increasing his self-awareness together with psychological counselling.

The applicant has undertaken a family violence intervention program (FVOIP) whilst in prison.  At the time he commenced the program he scored at a level on the ODARA scale at which 39% of men committed a new assault against their partner within an average of 5 years.  He was described by facilitators as at ease with understanding the concepts of the program on an intellectual level but less comfortable practicing those skills.  Nevertheless, he was described in the program completion report as an “even tempered, reflective and supportive group member.”.

The applicant, were he not to receive parole, is due to complete his sentence on the 05/12/2022. Whilst there are significant concerns regarding his refusal to consider his own personality factors as highly relevant to his actions against his former wife and be open to understand, address and/or monitor those matters so that future risk of violence is reduced, there remains a benefit not only to him but to the community at large that he be released in circumstances where there can be supervision of him. Supervision would include engaging the applicant in those strategies raised by the psychologist as important to manage his risk.  In their latest Pre-Parole Report Community Corrections recognise the need for a high level of supervision to mitigate risk and to assist him reintegrate into the community.  They are aware of the recommendations made by the psychologist as previously outlined and believe that they can assist the applicant reduce his risk if released under their supervision.  They note that “…it would be counterintuitive to see Mr Richardson released in December with no support in place.”

In considering all matters and noting that whilst on parole the applicant will be subject to conditions that limit his capacity to be near his victim and will be electronically monitoring the Board approve the order for parole.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• Not to enter the municipality of Clarence
• Not to contact directly or indirectly the victim and children
• To obtain a mental health care plan

Paroled from 4 May 2022 - 5 March 2023