Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Christopher Earnest Denman

21 April 2023

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Christopher Earnest Denman (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 15 months imposed upon conviction for charges of evade police, burglary, stealing, motor vehicle stealing and various drug, driving and firearms related offences.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 17 April 2023.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 21 April 2023. 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:

The applicant is now 42 years old and has relevant prior history spanning over twenty years, characterised by drug, alcohol, and violence related offending. The applicant commenced use of cannabis in his early teens and increased his use of other illicit drugs including amphetamine and methamphetamine in his early twenties.

This abuse of illicit drugs is clearly linked to his offending, and the applicant has served previous custodial sentences, the most recent of which was in 2016 for serious violent offending. The applicant was subject to a parole order in relation to this offending in 2016 but the order was ultimately revoked due to continued drug use. The applicant has also been subject to several Probation Orders and Community Service orders associated with his offending.

His history of compliance on previous supervised orders is mixed and he reports that he struggled to abstain from drug use during his last Parole Order due the negative influence of his family.  The applicant’s childhood was characterised by exposure to illicit drugs, with both his mother and father having a history of illicit substance use, and in particular his father had a history of incarceration in relation to drug matters. His older brother also has a history of offending, drug use and incarceration, but notably the applicant reports his brother has recently managed to move away from a pro-criminal lifestyle and is remaining drug free and engaged in employment and a pro-social lifestyle. During the applicant’s incarceration, he has had contact with and enjoyed family support from both his mother and brother.

Prior to this period of incarceration, the applicant reports he maintained a period of stability and stayed out custody for close to 12 months after he was released from a previous custodial sentence in July 2020. Unfortunately, however he returned to illicit drug use and his offending escalated, culminating in his current custodial sentence.

During this custodial sentence, the applicant has sometimes struggled with compliance. Case notes reveal four incidents of internal offending since September 2022, primarily related to inappropriate behaviour towards other inmates and two incidents of smoking in his cell. Notably, there appears some change in his behaviour as he recently attained a medium classification and holds employment as a general hand in the prison laundry.  While case notes are mixed, more recent reports are positive in terms of the applicant’s general behaviour and engagement with case management and reintegration.  Prison staff report the applicant is honest and open about his struggles with addiction and he is motivated to pursue his application for parole despite being close to the expiration of his sentence.

When considering the applicant’s suitability for parole, of concern to the Board is the applicant’s apparent lack of engagement in therapeutic intervention in relation to his illicit drug use, despite being offered the options of referral to individual counselling within the prison.  While the applicant reportedly has good insight into his addiction and lack of capacity to resist relapse into use when exposed to pro-criminal influences, information provided suggests he appears to lack realistic strategies of how to manage these risks if granted parole.

At interview the applicant presented as motivated to pursue parole, not only for himself but also for his mother who is unwell. While the strategies he outlined in terms of how he would manage his risk of relapse were limited and simplistic, he reported recent work with therapeutic staff had assisted him to understand the importance of engaging with programs and support to assist him. He expressed a willingness to engage appropriately with the support offered by a parole order, stating he “wanted off drugs” and would use the time on parole to build better strategies to avoid the triggers that had led to his relapse in the past.

On balancing all factors, the Board determines the applicant is suitable for parole. To assist in the effective monitoring and management of the applicant’s risks and apply an additional incentive for the applicant to comply with the support and structure of a parole order, electronic monitoring will be imposed.

The Board’s determination:

Parole Granted

Special conditions applied:

• To submit to Electronic Monitoring

Paroled from 1 May 2023 - 1 November 2023