Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Hayden Dean Stone

19 August 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Hayden Dean Stone (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 21 months imposed upon conviction of the charge of armed robbery.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 29 April 2022, but his application was adjourned at the Board’s hearing on 27 May 2022 due to outstanding court matters and to provide the applicant an opportunity to demonstrate compliant behaviour.

The applicant appeared again before the Board at the hearing on 19 August 2022, and 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.

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.”

A pre-parole report prepared on behalf of the Board had been read to the applicant prior to his appearance at the hearing.

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 is serving a custodial sentence relating to a crime of armed robbery. The applicant was originally sentenced to a drug treatment order but due to the applicant’s lack of engagement with the Court Mandated Diversionary program and ongoing illicit drug use, the order was cancelled by the Court and the custodial part of his sentence activated.

The applicant is a relatively young offender with an unfortunately long history of offending as a youth and young adult involving mainly crimes of dishonesty and violence. Despite a stable upbringing, the applicant became involved with pro-criminal associates, and began using drugs, most particularly methamphetamine. The applicant reports he used drugs as a coping mechanism when struggling with life in the community

The applicant has a poor history of compliance with community-based orders and his ability to manage his behaviour while in prison has at times been problematic, with 3 internal offences involving assaults and altercations with inmates recorded in the past 12 months. Case notes however are varied, reflecting recent negative urinalysis results, and polite and courteous behaviour with correctional staff despite an incident involving an assault on another inmate in July 2022.

Due to COVID-19 related operational limitations and associated lockdowns, the applicant’s current maximum classification and previous medium classification has affected his ability to participate in therapeutic interventions to address his aggressive behaviour and responses in the custodial setting.

Prior to his last appearance before the Board, the applicant had not actively sought to engage with supports to assist him to manage his behaviour.  However recent case notes indicate the applicant has sought referral for anger management counselling and improved in his attitude to seeking help to address his offending behaviour.

Notably the applicant demonstrated some insight during his interview before the Board, acknowledging that his response is simply to “fight” rather than work on other strategies to remove himself from conflictual situations. The applicant’s improved attitude to seeking support and assistance and reported willingness to make positive lifestyle changes has led to Community Corrections assessing the applicant as suitable for a parole order.

The applicant does have some protective factors, including pro-social, suitable accommodation and ongoing family support from his mother and sister. He claims to have broken ties with past pro-criminal associates and expressed an intention to re-engage with community-based sporting groups he was involved with in the past.

While the applicant’s risk and needs profile indicated he would require a high level of intervention and supervision, he has worked on his behaviour in the custodial setting as requested and presents as understanding the need to engage with appropriate supports in the community and make positive lifestyle changes.

Despite concerns regarding the applicant’s history of non-compliance, the Board is satisfied the additional support and strict conditions of a parole order, including electronic monitoring of conditions, will assist in appropriate management of identified risks.

The Board’s determination:

Parole Granted

Special conditions applied:

• Must engage with a general practitioner to be assessed for a mental health plan and attend psychological counselling as recommended by the plan
• Must submit to electronic monitoring of parole conditions.

Paroled from 29 August 2022 - 14 March 2023