Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Wayne Vonk

9 December 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Wayne VONK (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Aggravated Burglary, Assault x2.

The applicant became eligible for a parole order from the 21/08/2022.

The applicant’s application for a Parole Order first came before the Board on the 19/08/2022 when it was adjourned to enable a psychological assessment to be undertaken and report obtained.  The matter was again adjourned on the 25/11/2022 to enable updated reports to be received. The applicant then appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 09/12/2022.  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 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 was a long term employee in the disability care sector.  He had been suspended from his employment when he entered a residential care home operated by his employer.  He was armed with a knife.  He claimed his intention was to damage property.  The only staff member on duty at the time of his entry was a female disability support worker known to the applicant.  She requested the applicant leave.  The applicant assaulted her by choking her twice, placing the blade of a knife to her neck, cutting her finger and pushing his own fingers down her throat.  Thankfully she was eventually able to make her escape and raise the alarm.  The applicant’s actions would have been terrifying to his victim and no doubt continue to have an impact on her wellbeing.

The applicant asserts that these events represent an extreme loss by him of control.  He was acting in response to the workplace investigation that was occurring into him.  He asserts that this loss of control will not occur again.  He points to the fact that he will not return to the work environment, that he has recognised that he needs to communicate with others regarding his thoughts and feelings rather than letting them build up and escalate. He identifies his family an supportive and available to him for discussing his feelings and needs.  He does not endorse violence, has witnessed it in the context of serving his sentence and does not wish to return to prison.

This is his first sentence. At the time he was sentenced the applicant was 56 years of age.  He, with one exception, had no relevant criminal history however in 2008 he was charged with stalking a former partner however he was discharged without conviction and the matter dealt with in the mental health diversion list of the Magistrates Court.  The issue of the applicant’s mental health appears to be relevant to both matters and raises concern as to the prospect that the applicant acts out in an extreme way when mentally unwell.  For this reason psychological assessment was sought and a report obtained from Dr O’Donnnell.  She assessed the applicant has having behaved in an offending manner in the past when feeling rejected, resentful and angry.  He can become obsessional in his thinking but was not currently presenting with any symptoms of psychosis.  Protective factors against further offending exist including the support of the applicant’s family, his willingness to engage with mental health care when in the community and the absence of any stressors either from relationships or a workplace.  Dr O’Donnell concludes that it is important for the applicant to engage in ongoing therapeutic input both to improve his understanding of his obsessional thinking and also to monitor any ongoing obsessional or unhealthy thinking.

The applicant has served his sentence compliantly.  He occupies a position as a trusted inmate.  He is housed in the O’Hara units and has constructively worked outside the prison at the Dog’s home.  Supervision under a Parole Order will provide an extra layer of monitoring and support as the applicant transitions back into the community.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• Mental health plan
• Excluded from specified area
• Excluded from specified persons.

Paroled from 20 December 2022 - 21 November 2023