Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Caleb Anthony Woods

25 March 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Caleb Anthony WOODS (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Armed Robbery.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for a parole order on the 03/01/2022.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 25/03/22 after the application had previously been adjourned due to accommodation issues and at the request of Community Corrections to enable collaborative safety planning to occur in anticipation of his potential release.  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 entered a Service Station late at night.  He was armed with a knife.  He confronted an employee there and took the cash contents of the till.  He has been in custody because of this offending since October 2020.  He has a relevant prior criminal history including for matters of robbery and aggravated burglary.  At the time he was sentenced the Court noted the applicant’s intellectual functioning was significantly impaired with a capacity for reasoning and thinking falling below 99% of the adult population and his conduct was also influenced by his use of drugs.  Allowance was made for parole on the basis that there appeared to the Court some hope of reform.

It is noteworthy that the applicant has previously been subject to community-based orders demonstrating on the whole good engagement particularly if he was compliant with his mood stabilising medication.  At the time of his hearing before the Board the applicant noted that he remained medicated taking Seroquel with good affect to manage his moods and he would continue taking medication and engaging with psychological treatment upon his return to the community.  The applicant is on a NDIS plan that apparently also provides support to him and practical assistance to maintain engagement with his treatment.

Whilst it is a concern that the applicant remains classified as requiring maximum security and has been unable to sustain progression through the classification system at the prison,  there is indication that his behaviour has been improving and the last events recorded as raising concern regarding his attitude date back to August of 2021. Perhaps reflecting his poor intellectual functioning, the applicant has not engaged in therapeutic or vocational courses within the prison and has struggled to future plan during case management meetings within the prison.

As noted by Community Corrections in their assessment of the applicant and his suitability for parole he has significant and complex needs.  He is a young indigenous man with a background of significant trauma and disadvantage who has cognitive, mood and other psychological deficits together with a history of drug abuse.  Because of those deficits his best prospect for effecting change is in an environment of support and supervision.  He is currently stably maintained on medication, has the support of NDIS, his mother who is described as a strong pro-social influence, and available suitable accommodation.  With those supports in place it is believed that the applicant can comply and benefit from a parole order.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• Mental health care plan
• Exclusion from a place specified

Paroled from 4 April 2022 - 3 July 2023