Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Neville Lindsay Whiting

25 March 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Neville Lindsay WHITING (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Murder.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 04/04/2022.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 25/03/2022.  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:

On the 28^th of March 2011 the applicant caused the death of Mr Scott Rock.  He had not met Mr Rock before.  He was in the company of Mr Hudson, who he had known only for a few days, and Ms. Kelly who he knew as he had once been her neighbour.  All three were present together when an argument erupted between Mr Rock and Ms Kelly.  Mr Hudson involved himself in the dispute before Mr Rock then left the residence and started to walk away.  He was pursued by both Mr Hudson and the applicant.  When they caught up with Mr Rock, Mr Hudson punched him to the jaw causing him to fall to the ground.  Mr Hudson then walked away but the applicant did not.  What the applicant then did defies logic.  He did not know the victim and he did not have a criminal history for violence but once Mr Rock was on the ground, he stomped and kicked his head. As a result, Mr Rock died.  The applicant and his co-offender then took the body to a forest and set it on fire.  Mr Rock was not found until the 4^th of April 2011.

The applicant’s actions that evening not only took Mr Rock’s life but also significantly affected his victim’s family and friends.  Their statements as to the profound impact the loss of Mr Rock has had upon their lives have been carefully considered by the Board in its assessment of the application for parole.

The applicant has some prior convictions but none that are relevant to the violence of his offending or suggestive of a trajectory whereby he was likely to engage in offending of this seriousness.  His criminal history includes several driving convictions and a sentence of imprisonment for obtaining a financial advantage in 2009.  At his sentencing Evans J observed that it was “…difficult to find an explanation for what he [the applicant] did.  He had no personal animosity that would justify or explain his actions.”. The one factor that was identified as contributory to his offending was his significant intoxication at the time of the offence.  Indeed, the applicant had been a long-term abuser of alcohol.

The applicant’s approach to his custodial sentence has been one of compliance.  He is a minimum-security inmate and indeed is housed in the O’Hara units.  He is described as a quiet inmate in his case notes who is polite and takes pride in his work.  In addition to his accommodation at the O’Hara units the applicant has been afforded the privilege of undertaking employment in the community and resocialisation leave with his family.  These opportunities have been positively utilised by the applicant and no concerns have arisen with respect to behaviour during the same.  Indeed, a reference has been provided by one of the community organisations with which he has worked describing his conduct and performance positively.

Throughout his sentence the applicant has been subject to random urinalysis all of which have been returned as clear of illicit substances and he has demonstrated the capacity to comply with the rules and regulations of the custodial environment.

The applicant has engaged in vocational courses over the period of his sentence gaining several certificates which will enhance his prospects of obtaining employment post release.  Therapeutic courses have not been made available for him to participate in, despite his request to do so, given his assessment as being at low risk of future violence.  The applicant has engaged with planning officers at the prison who have assisted him to complete his own relapse prevention plan and offence map.  Their feedback to the Board was that he demonstrated good engagement during the process and had good strategies to avoid a relapse to alcohol and risky situations in the future.

Suitable and supportive accommodation is available for the applicant if released on parole and Community Corrections have assessed him as suitable for supervision by them on a parole order.

The applicant’s crime was senseless.  It has resulted in the loss of the life and future potential of Mr Rock and ongoing hurt and distress to his loved ones.  The applicant has, however, demonstrated that he has the intent and the capacity to change and become a compliant and industrious member of the community.  Given his recognition of the need to not resume drinking alcohol and the capacity to monitor him through electronic monitoring it is the Board’s finding that it is appropriate he be released on parole.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• No contact with the registered victims

Paroled from 5 April 2022 - 4 April 2031