Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Garry Scott Sullivan

14 October 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Garry Scott SULLIVAN (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Aggravated carjacking, Stealing, Aggravated Assault, Dangerous Driving and Unlawfully Injuring Property x3.

The applicant became eligible for a parole order from the 25/02/2022.

The applicant initially appeared before the Parole Board in respect of this application at its hearing on the 10/06/2022 when it was adjourned for further information to be obtained by the Board relevant to the application.  The application was again adjourned on the 08/07/2022 for the applicant to demonstrate a sustained period of compliant behaviour and to make arrangements for community supports to be available for him on release.  Ultimately the application was heard by the Board on the 14/10/2022.  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 has had the privilege of Parole Orders in the past all, of which have resulted in his breach of conditions, usually centred around drug use, and the revocation of the orders.  In respect of the current sentence, a Parole Order granted in November 2021 was revoked in March 2022.  The applicant’s difficulty in complying with Parole Orders also extends to other types of community supervision under Community Service and Probation orders which have been imposed over the years.  When assessing the applicant’s suitability for a further attempt of community supervision under a Parole Order, his lengthy history of difficulty in compliance or positively responding to supervision is of significant concern.

In large part, the applicant’s difficulties in complying with orders and, indeed, a significant contributory factor to his extensive criminal history, is his drug addiction. The applicant demonstrates good insight into the negative consequences his drug use and lifestyle generally have had upon him and presents as motivated to effect a change in his life. He has worked since his return to custody on identifying triggers for his drug use and strategies to avoid relapse. He has commenced the bivudal programme which he identifies as having made a significant difference to his capacity to function and control his desire for drugs better than when previously on the methadone programme.

Abstinence from drug use is central to the applicant’s capacity to succeed on a Parole Order. It is important that his supervision includes a capacity to monitor his ongoing engagement with the bivudal programme and that he remains free of other drugs.  Urinary drug screening is an important tool for this.  Due to the suspected actions of the applicant on his previous Parole Order in attempting to avoid urinary drug screening by calling in hoax bomb threats to pathology services to whom he had been sent for the purposes of drug screening, it was questionable whether urinary drug screening would be available for the applicant.  Fortunately, arrangements were able to be made to ensure the applicant is subject to random urinary drug screening which will enable the Community Corrections to monitor the applicant’s observance of the condition of a Parole Order not to use drugs unless prescribed.

The applicant has made efforts to identify pro-social activities and supports that he can engage in upon his return to the community which will keep him busy including attending counselling, engaging in hobbies including his art.  The applicant’s daughter is a significant support and motivation for him to succeed.

The applicant presents as being motivated to achieve a pro-social lifestyle and as having a good understanding of what his needs are to succeed to effect this change.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved.

• Special conditions applied:
• Electronic monitoring
• Mental health care plan

Paroled from 24 October 2022 - 16 July 2023