Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Jamie Robert Robertson

10 June 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Jamie Robert ROBERTSON (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Breaches of Police Family Violence Order, Breach of bail conditions, Destroy Property x2, Possess a controlled drug, Possess controlled plant x3, Stealing x4, Motor Vehicle Stealing, Making off without payment Drive whilst not the holder of a driver licence x3, Dishonestly alter or display a document in a way calculated to deceive x2, Use vehicle on public street when number plate not affixed and displayed as required, Drive Whilst Disqualified x2, Use unregistered motor vehicle, No premium cover, Possess restricted substance, Stealing x2, Computer Related Fraud x2, Fail to appear, State false name & address, Drive a motor vehicle whilst a prescribed illicit drug is present in your blood, Motor Vehicle Stealing, Drive Whilst Disqualified.

The applicant became eligible for a parole order from the 11/03/2022.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 10/06/2022.  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.

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 criminal record commenced when he was 10 years of age, receiving a police caution, and has continued relatively unabated since that time.  His record reflects that he has embraced a criminal lifestyle.  His offending includes family violence, crimes of dishonesty, drug and driving matters.

Given his criminal history the applicant has been subject to supervision in the past through Community Corrections.  He is described as exhibiting a poor history of compliance with supervision orders to which he attributed to his unstable mental health. At times the applicant has offended whilst subject to supervision.

The applicant has been described as demonstrating good compliance and behaviour during his custodial term.  Whilst he has engaged in some internal offending behaviour his case notes have largely remained positive describing him as polite and well behaved. The last instance of internal offending occurred in March and was the result of finding him in possession of a tablet of temazepam which he had not been prescribed.  In January he was found in possession of a “home brew”.  This offending suggests ongoing issues with substance use exists for this applicant.  It is also noteworthy, however, that the applicant has been able to sustain compliance with the prison rules since March of this year.

The applicant has attempted to engage in therapeutic intervention during his custodial period.  He enrolled in the resilience program however was unable to participate in that program as its start was delayed and it has not since resumed. The applicant was also wait listed for the family violence intervention program however the program has not been delivered during his term of imprisonment.

Suitable accommodation is available to the applicant were he approved for a Parole Order.

The applicant asserts that he wishes to reform.  He showed insight when heard by the Board of his risks were he to resume drug use and asserts an intention to sustain abstinence from drugs and pursue a pro social pathway.  Despite the past failures of supervision whilst subject to community based orders the applicant presents as determined and motivated to effect positive changes in his life.  A parole order will support this determination and provide him with the ability to access the family violence offender intervention program once in the community.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Paroled from 20 June 2022 - 20 December 2022