Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Shane Phillip West

25 February 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Shane Phillip WEST (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Armed Robbery x4, Attempted Armed Robbery, Aggravated Armed Robbery x2, Demanding property with menaces & Robbery x4 and Stealing

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 21/03/2019.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 17/09/2021 at that time his application was adjourned for work to be undertaken between Community Corrections and the Tasmanian Aboriginal Corporation with a view to exploring the capacity of the applicant to be supervised on a parole order on Cape Barren Island. The Board understood that the best chance of success of the applicant on a parole order would potentially lie in his return to country.  His mother resides on the Island, he grew up there and has a strong connection to it.  Previous attempts of parole served on the Tasmanian mainland had not met with success.  It became clear, however that traditional methods of supervising a Parole Order including the capacity for random urinary drug screening, could not be achieved on the island.  The Board also explored whether there were any indigenous based options or learnings which were relevant to supervision and/or risk control beyond the traditional western methods currently available to and understood by the Board and which could be applied in this matter but were not successful in identifying any different approaches.

The application then came back before the Board but was adjourned sor the applicant to source suitable accommodation on mainland Tasmania.  Upon approved accommodation being found and available the application was brought back before the Board on the 25.02.2022 for hearing.  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 been the previous recipient of parole orders.  Orders granted in 2000, 2006, 2012, 2014 and 2017 were all revoked due to breaches of the conditions of the order including by the applicant absconding, using drugs and drinking.  He has been offending from a young age and as noted on his sentencing for the 2017 robbery matters, he had spent only 3 ½ years out of prison since he was 23 years of age, an approximate 20-year period.

When he has appeared before the Board the applicant presents as a mature and intelligent man who does wish to cease his offending behaviour.  He is let down, however, by his propensity to return to drug and alcohol use when returned to the community.  He has served his sentence compliantly.  He is housed in the O’Hara cottages, has no disciplinary breaches over the last 12 months and case notes report him as a “valued member of the community” within the prison.  He has worked in trusted positions as a general hand in the market garden/grounds and as a dog handler in the Dogs Home of Tasmania program within the prison.

Cultural leave granted for him to join with the community was described as having been conducted by him to a “very high standard”.  During his time in prison the applicant has engaged in several therapeutic programs and counselling.  Most recently he has completed an Indigenous Art Project and obtained a Certificate I in Access to Work and Training units.

Suitable accommodation is available for him to reside at under a parole order.  The Board agrees with the assessment of Community Corrections that the applicant is well intentioned and motivated but, as attested by his past efforts on parole, he lacks the ability to self-manage in a non-custodial setting.  Of concern is not merely the revocation of an order but also the risk that the applicant presents to the community when released and not maintaining appropriate behaviours and boundaries.  This risk has materialised in the past with the applicant committing several significant crimes which have placed innocent members of the community at risk whilst he was on parole.

The cycle needs to be broken.  The applicant has the capacity to comply with conditions as demonstrated by the way he serves his sentence in a custodial setting.  Despite the fact that a return to Cape Barren Island, where he may be able to more easily achieve stability, is not available for him he does have supports within mainland Tasmania.  He points out that he has never in the past had financial stability which he now has by virtue of a compensation payment.  He is motivated to remain in the community to assist and support family and believes electronic monitoring will assist him in his efforts to remain compliant with parole conditions.  Because of these factors it is the decision of the Board to provide a further opportunity on parole for the applicant.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• Mental health care plan
• Self exclusion
• No contact with victim directly or indirectly

Paroled from 8 March 2022 - 2 April 2026