Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Michael William Hanlon

3 March 2023

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Michael William HANLON (“the applicant”) is serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon his conviction for Manslaughter.

The applicant became eligible for a parole order from the 28/12/2022.

The applicant appeared before the Parole Board at its hearing on the 03/03/2023.  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 was one of four persons found guilty of manslaughter in respect of the death of their victim, Mr Medcraft.  Mr Medcraft’s death started with a dispute with a person other than the applicant and ended with the victim being struck a blow to the back of his knee with a sword leading to significant blood loss and death.  The applicant did not wield the sword but did engage himself in the confrontation with the victim that ultimately led to the loss of life.  The applicant had a criminal history albeit an aged one such that he had led a compliant lifestyle for a significant period prior to this event.  To have inserted himself into a set of circumstances which had little if any direct relevance to him and which led to the death of another is something that the applicant will have to live with for the rest of his life.

The applicant has a history of cannabis use but asserts that he has not used the substance since this event.  He has not accessed therapeutic interventions during his imprisonment although his capacity to do so has been hampered by the intervention of the COVID-19 pandemic.  His engagement with his planning and reintegration officer was similarly hampered due to the recency of the applicant’s sentencing and the extended period he spent on remand as a result.

The manner in which the applicant has served his sentence supports the proposition that he has the intent and ability to maintain good compliance with the requirements of a Parole Order and to reintegrate as a law abiding member of society.  He is minimum security rated.  His case notes describe his behaviour and attitude in a positive way. He has a good work ethic and has been employed at the prison in the laundry and as a general hand in the kitchen.

The applicant has a positive relationship with his daughter who leads an industrious and pro social life. Were he to be granted a parole order it is proposed that he reside with her.  This accommodation has been assessed as suitable and indeed as offering him a supportive environment in which to complete his parole obligations.

The assessment of Community Corrections is that the applicant is suitable for a parole order noting that as part of his supervision the applicant would be assisted to access offence focused therapeutic interventions and engage in counselling to solidify his intent to lead a pro social lifestyle.

Considering the compliant manner in which the applicant has conducted himself whilst in the custodial environment and the intent to access therapeutic interventions in the community setting which will be directed toward the nature of the past offending, the granting of a Parole Order is appropriate.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved.

Special conditions applied:

• Electronic monitoring
• Mental health care plan
• No contact with named persons

Paroled from 15 March 2023 - 28 September 2025