Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Tobias Pick

23 June 2023

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Tobias Pick (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 5 years on the matter of manslaughter and stealing, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 27^th June 2023.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 23rd June 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:

On the 6^th December 2021 the applicant was sentenced. This sentence was imposed upon his conviction for manslaughter and stealing. The conviction relates to offences perpetrated against a Chinese-born Australian whom the applicant engaged for sexual services. During this encounter, secondary to the victim’s request, the applicant applied pressure to her neck for sexual stimulation. The pressure applied was such that it caused the victim’s death by strangulation. Following the victim’s death, the applicant left without calling for help and also took $2400 belonging to the victim.

Suitability for parole is determined at the time of parole eligibility and is informed by factors including the applicant’s response to the custodial setting, their attitude towards their offences and whether the interests of the community are best served through their release into the community. The Board is particularly interested in the level of risk and whether the interests of the community are best served through their release into the community or for the applicant to remain within the custodial environment.

To assess this level of risk in addition to the applicant appearing before the Board, many sources of information were to hand. The Board considered the following documents:

1. The application for parole
2. Comments on passing sentence
3. Information regarding prior convictions
4. A Prison Summary
5. A Prison Episode Summary
6. A Pre Parole report

At the time of the offences, the applicant was on a working holiday from his home country of Germany. He had been travelling throughout Australia and settled in Adelaide for approximately 18 months where he formed a relationship with a woman. They travelled to Tasmania together.

On the day of the offence, the applicant argued with his girlfriend and contacted the victim to engage her services. This would be the second time they had met. The applicant maintains he engaged in the practice which ultimately led to the victim’s death at her request. He strangled her to cause asphyxia to heighten sexual stimulation. Unfortunately upon seeing the victim was not moving, he took the opportunity to take $2400 cash from her belongings without seeking assistance.

In Germany, he was a fully qualified boilermaker/welder and had worked in this field for about 4 years. Upon completion of his apprenticeship, he elected to work in a government-funded social service program assisting young refugees to settle in Germany. He expressed a desire to return to helping people if he can once he is home, for example undertaking social work or similar. The applicant has good work prospects upon his return to Germany. He has no prior convictions and reports pro-social family and friends.

The applicant tried to use his time during incarceration fruitfully. He undertook maths, computer and sewing classes. He was employed in the tailor shop and received excellent reports regarding this work. The applicant also engaged with therapeutic services. His behaviour is described as good throughout his incarceration, being further described as extremely polite and easy to work with. On a standardised assessment, the applicant was deemed to be a low risk of future violent offending.

The applicant maintains he did not intend any harm to the victim and has consistently reported feelings of remorse for his actions and a strong desire to alter the course of his actions. He plead guilty upon arrest further demonstrating his acceptance of responsibility. At interview, the applicant impressed upon the Board his remorse for his actions and stated he did not intend anyone any harm. He stated he wanted to return to his family where he could apologise to them and make up for his actions.

The applicant has had his visa cancelled by Australian Border Force. If granted parole he will be deported back to Germany.

Overall, the Board considered the applicant to be a low risk of re-offending with good prospects for rehabilitation. He presented as motivated and capable of working towards returning to being a contributing member of his community in his country of origin and is therefore suitable for parole.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Paroled from 26 July 2023 - 27 December 2025.