Parole Board Decision

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

and

In the matter of an Application for Parole by Gary Allen HIND

3 August 2007

Reason for Decision

The Applicant appeared before Mr Justice Byrne in the Queensland Supreme Court on 15 September 1994 and was convicted of one count of murder and one count of armed robbery.

In relation to the count of murder the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for life.

In relation to the murder conviction His Honour made the following comments when passing sentence :

“Garry Allan Hind and (co-accused) you have both been convicted of murder. There is only sentence I may impose in respect of that offence. I impose it in respect of both of you.

You are each sentenced to imprisonment for life.”

In relation to the conviction for armed robbery the Applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 10 years.

The Applicant was also convicted of a number of offences for crimes of dishonesty in December 1994 and sentenced to further periods of imprisonment.

In accordance with the Queensland Corrective Services Act 1988, section 166 (1) of that Act provides that a prisoner serving a term of life imprisonment would not be eligible for parole until the prisoner had been detained for a period of 13 years. As such the Applicant became eligible to be released on parole on 21 February 2007.

The Applicant made an application for his prison sentence to be transferred from Queensland to Tasmania pursuant to the provisions of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982. The Applicant was received into the custody of the Tasmanian Prison Service on 14 March 2001.

The Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 provides that a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a Queensland Court will be deemed to have been imposed upon that person by a corresponding Tasmanian Court and will be given effect to in Tasmania and the laws of Tasmania will apply as if the Tasmanian Court had the power to impose the sentence and did in fact impose the sentence.

In simple terms the life sentence imposed upon the Applicant and the period of imprisonment which he must serve before he became eligible to be considered for parole were transferred from Queensland to Tasmania.

The factual circumstances surrounding the crime committed by the Applicant were not set out in detail in the comments on passing sentence made by Mr Justice Byrne, as there was only sentence which Mr Justice Byrne could impose upon the Applicant according to law. The Board has interviewed the Applicant at length regarding the circumstances surrounding the crime he committed and inquiries have also, been made by the relevant departments in Queensland as to the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s crime.

The Board has been advised, by the Victims Assistance Unit that there are no victims registered in relation to the crimes committed by the Applicant. As such, the statutory criteria in that regard, has been satisfied.

In considering the Applicant’s application for parole the Board has taken into account the relevant statutory criteria which it is required to do so pursuant to the Corrections Act 1997.

The Board has taken into account the following matters when assessing the Applicant’s application for parole:

(a) The Applicant’s prior convictions.

(b) The Applicant’s prison record (since he has been a prisoner in Tasmania). He has been described as an exemplary prisoner.

(c) A number of references provided to the Board in support of the Applicant’s application for parole.

(d) The fact that the Applicant has undertaken a number of educational courses whilst in prison.

(e) The Applicant’s prison file.

The Applicant was, interviewed by the Board on a number of occasions in relation to his application for parole.

The Board has been advised that the Applicant is a model prisoner. He has held a number of positions of trust during the time that he has been in prison.

A number of references by prison officers were tendered in support of the Applicant’s application for parole. Each officer who tendered a reference in support of the Applicant’s application for parole spoke highly of him.

The Board notes that the Applicant will have stable accommodation upon his release from prison. The Applicant has also obtained employment prior to his release from prison.

Due to a number of factors the Board arranged for the Applicant to be assessed by Professor S Pridmore. Professor Pridmore has provided the Board with a comprehensive report regarding the Applicant’s mental state.

Professor Pridmore is of the view that there is no evidence of the Applicant suffering from psychosis or a mood disorder.

The Applicant has undergone a number of releases pursuant to section 42 of the Corrections Act. Such conditional releases have always occurred without incident.

The Applicant has a clear understanding of his obligations to the community whilst on parole. The Board is of the view that his continued rehabilitation will best be served by granting him a period of parole.

In all respects the Applicant meets the statutory criteria to be granted parole subject to appropriate conditions being imposed upon his parole in accordance with the recommendations of his probation officer and Professor Pridmore.

Paroled 07/08/07 for the term of his natural life.