Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by W L S

19 August 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

WLS (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years imposed upon conviction of the charge of maintaining a sexual relationship with a young person under the age of 17.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 30 April 2022 but his application before the Board on 29 April was adjourned due to lack of suitable accommodation.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 19 August 2022. On that occasion the applicant 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 had been read to the applicant prior to his appearance at the hearing.

Registered victim:

There is a registered victim.

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 punish for the criminal wrongdoing.

Consideration:

The applicant’s offending was described by the Court at the time of sentencing as the ‘most appalling breach of trust” as the victim of the crime was his daughter.  During the late 1990’s the applicant sexually abused his daughter on a number of occasions from when she was aged 10 until she was about 13 years of age, but it was not until she was an adult that the victim reported the abuse to police.

The applicant has no criminal record other than some traffic matters and this has been his first time in a custodial environment.  The applicant has been classified as requiring minimum security throughout his sentence and is employed as a general hand in the kitchen.  All case notes describe the applicant as polite, respectful and a good worker who works unsupervised.

Prior to his offending, the applicant had a good industrial record, having been a qualified bricklayer and builder since 1995 in addition to spending some time in the Army.  He was however retired by the time he was incarcerated.

While the applicant was assessed for the New Directions sex offender program in prison, he was deemed not eligible due to his score on the STATIC-99-R risk assessment tool placing him in the very low risk category for being charged or convicted of another sexual offence.

The applicant now has suitable accommodation and has been receiving additional support from Beyond the Wire program which will continue on his release.

There is no doubt that the applicant’s actions are abhorrent to society and have understandably led to irrevocable psychological harm for the victim, as described in her victim impact statement provided to the Court and which the Board has had regard to.

There is some suggestion that the applicant has not fully accepted the gravity of his actions and lacks insight into the impact of his crime for the victim. At interview by the Board the applicant presented as having some understanding of the risks his offending posed to the community and appeared willing to submit to any conditions to minimise that risk.  It is the role of the Board to not only consider the nature and seriousness of the crime and the applicant’s response, but also prospects for reform, ongoing risk to the community if released and likely compliance with conditions of parole.

The Board finds the applicant presents little risk to the community once released. Throughout his custodial sentence, he has demonstrated the capacity and willingness to comply with prison regulations suggesting a capacity to comply with the strict conditions of parole. He has engaged appropriately with support services available to assist him with reintegration and appears focused on engaging in attaining further qualifications in the building industry to enable him to participate positively in the community.

The Board is satisfied that the applicant meets the statutory criteria to be eligible for parole, and any identified risks to the community can be appropriately managed through the strict conditions of a parole order, including electronic monitoring of those conditions.

The Board’s determination:

Parole granted

Special conditions applied:

• Must submit to electronic monitoring of parole conditions
• Must not contact the registered victim directly or indirectly.

Paroled from 30 August 2022 - 30 April 2024