Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Andrew John Semmens

29 April 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Andrew John Semmens (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 20 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 12 years and 6 months imposed upon his conviction for murder.

The applicant first became eligible to be considered for parole on 22 December 2021.  His application was adjourned at the Board’s meeting on 10 December 2021 due to lack of suitable accommodation and to allow the Board to seek a psychological report to assist in consideration of the applicant’s suitability for parole.

The Board adjourned the application again on 11 March for further information and the applicant then appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 29 April 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 are registered victims.

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:

This applicant is serving a sentence for the most serious of crimes, murder. Along with two other men he participated in a violent assault on the victim. The applicant struck the victim with a wooden implement while the victim was being held by the other men. The blow was fatal and resulted in the victim’s death four days after the attack. The attack was part of an apparently random series of attacks carried out by all three offenders in a suburban street against strangers, described by the Court at sentencing as having “not one iota of justification”.

At the time of his offending the applicant was 27 years old. Although he had prior history of violent offending, dishonesty and dangerous driving, his record reflects nothing as serious as the crime for which he is currently incarcerated.

The applicant is now 40 years of age and during his custodial sentence the applicant has engaged in a variety of therapeutic programs directed at addressing the serious nature of his offending. His behaviour in prison however has seen the applicant struggle in the custodial setting, cycling through security classifications which have seen him achieve minimum security several times, only to be returned to maximum due to regular internal offending and the use of violent and threatening behaviours towards other inmates.  Following a violent assault on an inmate in 2019 the applicant was assessed on the Violence Risk Scale (VRS) as being at a high-risk level for violent recidivism with multiple areas of need. The applicant undertook an individualised treatment program over a period of 12 months. In a program completion report, although the applicant was described as having made some treatment gains and demonstrating insights into his past violent behaviours, it was noted his entrenched attitude to the use of violence as a means of survival required further treatment.

Additionally, the applicant has engaged in other therapeutic interventions relating to his substance abuse, including the Apsley Program, Equips Addiction program and Smart Recovery. Reports provided to the Board suggest high levels of engagement and motivation, but note the applicant’s core beliefs and inability to deal with difficult emotions without resorting to anger or violence remain an issue for the applicant.

The applicant’s violent and aggressive tendencies continue to be the highest risk for him of re-offending and his ability to address these as part of a parole order must be balanced against the safety of the broader community.

In an updated psychological assessment requested by the Board,  Dr Amy Washington described the applicant as continuing to be at risk of impulsive behaviour and vulnerable to violent impulse due to his entrenched beliefs and personality style, reinforced over the years by his environment.

The report does highlight however that it appears there has been a shift in the applicant’s attitude and behaviour in the past twelve months. He has engaged in treatment intervention for historical trauma which he reported has been a turning point for him. Dr Washington recommended that if granted parole, the applicant would need to engage in anger management and continued trauma focused therapy to address his outstanding treatment needs.

The applicant’s last internal offence was recorded in March 2021. He recently attained a minimum classification and was moved to accommodation in the minimum-security prison. Accommodation nominated by the applicant has been assessed as suitable.  The applicant has strong family support and the prospect of employment within the family business.

Additionally, a post VRS assessment after the applicant’s engagement in individual treatment has seen a reduction in his assessed risk of violent recidivism from high-risk to moderate risk level.

While noting Dr Washington’s assessment of the applicant remaining at elevated risk of future general and violent offending, in referring to the positive shift in the applicant’s behaviour and meaningful engagement with treatment, Community Corrections suggest there appears little to be gained from ongoing incarceration in reducing the applicant’s risks.  With the support of his family and the boundaries provided by parole supervision with strict conditions, including electronic monitoring, the applicant has been assessed as benefitting from a release to parole to assist in his rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

The Board agrees with this assessment.

The Board’s determination:

Parole Granted

Special conditions applied:

• Must submit to electronic monitoring
• Must not contact named registered victims directly or indirectly
• Is excluded from entering a named suburban area and specified facilities
• Must not visit or enter any Outlaw motorcycle gang club

Paroled from 10 May 2022 - 22 June 2029