Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Curtis Peter Reeve

28 April 2023

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Curtis Peter Reeve (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 16 months with a non-parole period of 10 months.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on the first of May 2023.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 28^th 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:

On the 18^th November 2022 the applicant was sentenced.  This sentence was imposed upon his conviction for two counts of assault and four counts of breach of family violence order. The conviction relates to offences perpetrated against the applicant’s partner of 12 years, one incident occurring in the home they shared.  The offences include physically forcing the victim to the floor, grabbing her shoulders, hitting her, pulling her hair and verbally abusing her. Most concerning, the offences include an act of choking. Because this was disputed by the applicant and despite an early guilty plea, the victim was still required to give evidence in court.

Suitability for parole is informed at the time of parole eligibility and is informed by issues including the applicant’s response to the custodial setting, any growth within this setting, their attitude towards their offences 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. The Board is particularly interested in the level of risk the applicant may present to the general community. To make such as assessment, the Board relies on a vast array of information. On this occasion, in addition to the applicant appearing before the Board, the Board also considered the following documents:

1. The applicant’s written application for parole
2. Comments on passing sentence
3. Record of Prior offences
4. Prison episode summary
5. Prison Summary
6. Pre-parole report
7. Home assessment report

At the time of the offences, the applicant was 30 years of age, with minimal prior offences.  The offences were committed on the background of alcohol consumption. Now aged 31 and upon reflection, the applicant reported that he consumed a lot of alcohol at this point in his life.  He reports utilising this as a “coping mechanism” in an attempt to temper his “overthinking” of things which had occurred in the past. On his days off from work he would drink to excess, including on the days he committed these offences. When appearing before the Board, the applicant reported feeling ashamed by his behaviour, which he reports as atypical for him, adding there is not a day that goes by where he does not feel embarrassed by how he had acted.

Before his incarceration, the applicant demonstrated a strong background of employment, claiming he has worked since he was 13 years of age. Upon leaving school, then was employed until his incarceration led to the termination of his employment. The applicant has several properties which he is buying with the vision to be married to the victim and have children.  Since his incarceration and when housed in minimum security, he has continued this strong work record, being employed as a cleaner for the prison visitor rooms. He has alternative employment secured when he is released.

During his incarceration, the applicant demonstrated an active motivation to improve his general behaviour with an intention never to return to prison. He has engaged with an Alcohol and Drug Counsellor to address his alcohol consumption. From all accounts, it appears that the applicant does not have concerns with other illicit substances.

The applicant and the victim are engaged in relationship counselling which they intend to continue upon the applicant’s release.  They have maintained visits during the applicant’s incarceration while remaining compliant with the Interim Family Violence Order. Exhibiting strong remorse for his actions, the applicant appears particularly motivated to mend his relationship which has been fractured by his actions.

Prison case notes show the applicant to be polite and cooperative with officers and able to remain separate from prison politics.

When released to the community, the applicant has suitable accommodation. He reports a willingness to address his own psychological health by consulting with a psychologist, as separate from his relationship counselling, as well as address his history of drinking and potential reasons for heavy intake. Upon interview, he admitted he wanted to find alternative ways to manage his emotions. Given it was not possible for the applicant to undertake any family violence interventions within the prison environment, the applicant expressed his commitment to undertaking the Family Violence Offender Intervention Program (FVOIP) when released to the community.

In the assessment from Community Corrections, while concerns are raised about the applicant’s ability to comply with the current Family Violence Order, the service noted his understanding of the order and his willingness to comply with the order. Community Corrections further note the benefit of Electronic Monitoring for the applicant, so they are more able to monitor his compliance with conditions.

The Board noted the applicant’s address of relationship issues throughout his period of incarceration, his good behaviour while incarcerated and a strong motivation to continue accessing services to allow him to continue his development.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

Special conditions applied:

• To obtain and comply with a mental health care plan
• To submit to Electronic Monitoring

Paroled from 8 May 2023 - 8 November 2023