Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Noah Neptune Weiss-Trew

10 June 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Noah Neptune WEISS-TREW (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Aggravated assault, Dangerous Driving, Resisting a police officer, possessing a controlled drug, using a controlled drug and Unlawfully possess dangerous article in a public place.

The applicant became eligible for a parole order from the 28/02/2022.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 25/02/2022.  On that occasion the application was adjourned to enable the applicant to focus on his behaviour and put into place concrete supports for his release including access to a General Practitioner and an inpatient rehabilitation program for drug and alcohol treatment.  The application came back before the Board on the 10/06/2022.  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 the sort of criminal record that suggests that he has embraced an anti-social lifestyle with little regard to the law.  His offending history includes aggravated burglaries, drug, driving, firearm offences and some matters of violence.  His offending has not been deterred by the imposition of a suspended sentence and he has previously been unable to sustain compliance with a parole order.  Indeed, the previous parole order, imposed from the 20/08/2019, was revoked in January 2020 because of the applicant’s drug use and offending whilst on the order.

Central to the applicant’s offending and his difficulties in sustaining compliance with a parole order in the past has been his drug addiction.  He has lived the life of addiction to drugs since the age of 15 years and his engagement in crime has been, at least in part, fuelled by the need to finance his habit and has occurred at times when he has been under the influence of drugs.

On this background the applicant claims to be motivated to changing his life.  He attributes that motivation to greater maturity and the understanding that it is not too late for him to change and make for himself a better life.

This motivation appears evident in the efforts the applicant has made whilst serving his custodial sentence generally and certainly during the period in which this application stood adjourned.  He is described in his case notes as “exhibiting a positive attitude” and as having a “good work ethic”.  Whilst occasions of rude behaviour are noted it is acknowledged that these appear to be confined to early 2021.  Since appearing before the Parole Board in February he has moved twice in contract level and returned a negative urinalysis test.  He is currently employed in maximum precinct as a wardsman.

The applicant has suitable and supportive accommodation available to him upon his release and access to employment with his stepfather farming.  He recognises that he needs to engage in supports to assist him sustain a more pro social path.  Access to a general practitioner and mental health supports have been organised for his release.  He has been engaging with the Salvation Army Bridge Program from the prison by telephone and has a referral for their residential program which he intends to complete.  The South East Tasmania Aboriginal Corporation (SETAC) will also provide support to the applicant on his release.

Given the efforts made by the applicant which place himself in the best position upon release to effect change and noting that he would benefit from a supervised release into the community with access to therapeutic support it is the Board’s view that a parole order is appropriate.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• Mental health plan
• No contact with victims of offending

Paroled from 21 June 2022 - 10 October 2023