Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Bryce Anderson Woodward

14 January 2022

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Bryce Anderson Woodward (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 15 months imposed upon conviction of the charge of wounding.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 16 January 2022.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 14 January 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:

At 26, this applicant is a relatively young offender whose action in smashing a glass into the victim’s face in an intoxicated state, apparently unprovoked, was described by the Court on sentencing as an “apparently spontaneous, dangerous and brutal act”. A victim impact statement provided to the Court outlined the impact of such a reckless act on the victim has been both physical and psychological, affecting his ability to work and participate in the community.

Despite his age, the applicant has a relevant prior history, with a record of violence and driving related offending involving alcohol and family violence offending.  Complicit in the offending appears to be the applicant’s abuse of alcohol and illicit drugs that commenced in his early teens, using cannabis and amphetamine until his early twenties when he started using methamphetamine.  Historically, the applicant has not engaged in treatment for his substance use issues although he was subject to a Drug Treatment order at the time of this offending.

However, the applicant has demonstrated the capacity and motivation to change.  During his custodial sentence, the applicant has attained a minimum classification, and is currently accommodated in the minimum-security O’Hara Units, and employed in trusted employment as part of the Clarence City Council work team in the community.

Additionally, consistent with his family violence related offending the applicant has completed the FVOIP program.  A report provided indicates that although the applicant struggled to engage initially, by the conclusion he had improved in engagement significantly, demonstrating a growing maturity and ability to take and act on feedback.  This appears to have been reflected in his compliant behaviour in the custodial setting leading to relocation to the O’Hara Units and trusted employment.

On interview by the Board, the applicant reflected on his growing maturity, demonstrating good insight into his prior inability to regulate his emotions and behaviour, and expressing remorse and shame for the impact of his offending on the victim.

The applicant stated that his desire to re-establish a relationship with his three children was part of his motivation to work on himself in prison and he had sought accommodation in the south of the state in an attempt to remove himself from past associates and pro-criminal influences.

The applicant does have several protective factors, with a supportive family, suitable and supportive accommodation, and additional support through the Beyond the Wire program. Community Corrections have assessed the applicant has having a high risk and needs profile, but due to the additional supports in place and an ability to mitigate those risks through electronic monitoring of parole conditions, the applicant has been assessed as suitable for a parole order.

In the Board’s view, given his growing maturity and apparent motivation for change, demonstrated compliance in a custodial setting and the existence of additional supports, the applicant is suitable to be afforded the opportunity for parole.

The Board’s determination:

Parole Granted

Special conditions applied:

• Submit to electronic monitoring

Paroled from 24 January 2022 - 1 September 2022