Parole Board Decision

In the Matter of Corrections Act 1997

and

In the Matter of an application for Parole by Andrew Roger Fairfield

26 May 2023

Reasons for Decision

The Background:

Andrew Roger Fairfield (‘the applicant’) is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months on the matter of trafficking in a controlled substance x2.

The applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 5^th June 2023.

The applicant appeared before the Board in respect of his application at the hearing on 26^th May 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:

At the time of his offending, the applicant had not long left the Navy, where he had served for nearly 20 years. Following experiencing several traumatic events throughout his service, the applicant developed PTSD and was discharged from service.   Upon return to civilian life and the breakdown of his marriage, the applicant reports missing the sense of comradeship and excitement that the Navy offered him. With unfortunate timing, the applicant made a re-connection with an old school friend who was a member of an outlaw motorcycle club.  Secondary to the void this group filled in his life at the time, the applicant agreed to use his financial resources to set up premises in Tasmania to be used as a clubhouse. Around this time, the applicant had severe mental ill health, including suicidal ideation.

The applicant describes his involvement in the club escalating to the point he was involved in drug use and its importation. On a background of no relevant criminal history, the applicant helped to organise the trafficking of cocaine and methyl amphetamine into Tasmania.  The role of trafficking illicit drugs is of course a very significant factor in the illicit drug problem found in the community. It is the crucial link in the chain between production and use. This leads to significant economic and social problems in the community.

Upon interview, the applicant reports genuine and deep regret when reflecting on his crimes. He stated he feels remorse and self-condemnation for those affected by his behaviour, including his family and people adversely impacted by the activities of the outlaw motorcycle club. Based on his history and presentation, this behaviour seems out of character for him.  He reported he now has “bad standing” with the club, and he will not be willing or able to associate with the club or its members if released to the community.

The applicant is classified as minimum security and is housed in O’Hara units. He has been employed in the prison throughout his incarceration and is described as a “model inmate”, with a high work ethic and performance at a high standard. He has not completed any therapeutic or otherwise programs during his incarceration. This is said to be a result of the assessment of his low risk upon entering custody. The applicant has been afforded S42 leave on three occasions where it was reported his behaviour was “exceptional”.

At interview, the applicant describes a significant motivation for maintaining pro-social behaviour, as his daughters. He spoke of them with pride and impressed his desire to be a better father to them. He is financially stable, with stable accommodation.

He is looking forward to reconnecting with his therapeutic team comprised of GP, Psychiatrist and Psychologist, this includes a connection the Veterans support service “Open Arms”. Community Corrections have identified the applicant will require a medium level of supervision and provide support for his parole application.

The Board’s determination:

Parole is approved

• Special conditions applied:
• Mental Health Care Plan
• Non-association with any outlaw motorcycle club members

Paroled from 5 June 2023 - 5 March 2025