Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Jarrod Robert Ward

11 March 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Jarrod Robert Ward (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months imposed upon his conviction on the charge of wounding.

The applicant had the benefit of a previous parole order granted on 27 January 2021 but due to ongoing non-compliance with parole conditions, this order was revoked on 6 August 2021.

A further application for parole heard at the Board’s meeting on 26 November 2021 was refused, as the Board viewed the applicant as unsuitable at that time due to an internal offence and non-compliance with prison regulations.

The applicant again made application for parole and appeared before the Board on 11 March 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.

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 current sentence is being served in respect of his conviction of wounding, arising out of an incident that involved the applicant stabbing the victim in the neck after attending the victim’s home unannounced. The victim was known to the applicant and the circumstances that precipitated the attack appear to be motivated by anger and revenge.

The applicant has a history of violence with his criminal record disclosing previous violent offending occurring mainly in his early twenties.  The applicant is now in his early forties.

Complicit in his historical offending was his abuse of alcohol and illicit substances, including cannabis and amphetamines. The level of abuse of alcohol and drugs has varied over the years, and he reports he has had some periods of abstinence from illicit drugs and excessive alcohol use. He reports he has always had anger management issues and much of his violent offending was alcohol related. He also reports problematic mental health in the past but has been assisted by receiving a diagnosis of Bi-Polar Disorder while in custody and being prescribed appropriate medication.

The applicant’s abuse of illicit substances was clearly a factor in the revocation of the previous parole order made by the Board in January 2021. He relapsed into use of amphetamine/methamphetamine after his mental health declined due to family issues and separation from his partner at the time. Unfortunately, despite being released back to parole after a period of suspension due to non-compliance, the applicant disengaged from supervision and a warrant was issued for his arrest, and the parole order ultimately revoked.

Positively, on his return to custody, he engaged in therapeutic intervention, maintained a minimum classification, and obtained employment in the woodwork workshop.  However, due to internal incidents in late 2021, the applicant was reclassified medium and moved to medium security where he current has employment as a wardsman.  The applicant explained his involvement in the most recent offence was a result of him being caught up in a situation involved a group of other inmates engaging in riotous behaviour.

On interview by the Board, and as outlined in the pre-parole report, the applicant appeared to have good insight into the issues that led to his parole order being revoked.  He acknowledged his behaviour in shutting down and not being honest with his support worker, family or his parole officer was detrimental to his mental health and ability to avoid relapsing into drug use.  He recently commenced working with a drug and alcohol counsellor in custody and reported it was a relief to start talking about his issues and work to develop a further relapse prevention plan to assist him to remain drug free in the community.

The applicant does have some protective factors.  During his last period of parole, he was engaged with a psychologist, and was supported by Beyond the Wire, both of which the Board are advised will continue if he is released to parole.  The applicant will also be able to reconnect with his community-based drug and alcohol counsellor.  He continues to be well supported by his partner and family members and has appropriate pro-social and supportive accommodation.

The applicant has been assessed using the LSCMI risk/needs assessment as requiring a high level of intervention by Community Corrections. He has been recommended as a suitable candidate for parole due to the protective factors and his demonstrated insight into the issues that affected his ability to be successful during his last parole period. Community Corrections support the imposition of electronic monitoring to provide a further incentive for the applicant to comply with is parole conditions.

The Board agrees with this recommendation.

The Board’s determination:

Parole granted

Special conditions applied:

• Subject to electronic monitoring

Paroled from 21 March 2022 to 21 September 2022