Parole Board Decision

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

and

In the matter of an Application for Parole by Wayne John JONES

10 August 2007

Reason for Decision

The Applicant was convicted of one count of murder on 9 February 1994 and was sentenced to imprisonment for the term of his natural life. On the same day the Applicant was convicted of one count of creating a nuisance contrary to section 141 (1) of the Criminal Code and he was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years.

The Applicant made an application pursuant to the Criminal Code Amendment (Life Prisoners & Dangerous Criminals) Act 1994 to be re-sentenced in relation to the count of murder.

The Applicant was re-sentenced on 3 July 2002 to 25 years imprisonment to date from 1 November 1994. It was ordered that he not be eligible for parole until he had served at least half of that sentence.

As such the Applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 30 April 2007.

The factual circumstances surrounding the crimes committed by the Applicant are set out in the comments on passing sentence made by Justice Crawford on
9 February 1994. The Board has also been provided with the comments on passing sentence made by Justice Crawford when he re-sentenced the Applicant on 3 July 2002.

In relation to the Applicant’s personal circumstances and in relation to the issue of parole His Honour made the following comments:

“At the time he was clinically depressed as a result of the breakdown of his marriage and increasing difficulties he was having with his relationships to other family members. He had committed no prior offences in his life and it is unlikely that he will offend again. At the time he was 46 years of age.

At the same time as the imposition of a life sentence, he was sentenced to imprisonment for two years for the crime of creating a nuisance. That crime was committed because he was unlawfully armed in public in circumstances where the lives and safety of the public were endangered. As a result, serious injury was occasioned to one of those present at the wedding. Mark Johns. It was not an element of that crime that he intended to cause injury to Mr Johns, or that he foresaw it was likely.

For such a cold-blooded and premeditated murder, the appropriate sentence in my opinion is one of 25 years imprisonment to date from
1 November 1994, being exactly one year after his custody commenced. In fixing that date, account has been taken of the sentence imposed for creating a nuisance and the sentence for murder has to some extent been made cumulative upon the other. I am not persuaded that the usual rule as to parole should not apply, that being that he will not be eligible for consideration for parole until he has served at least half of the sentence imposed today.

According to the order of the Court it is that in place of the original sentence of life imprisonment for one count of murder Wayne John Jones is sentenced to 25 years imprisonment commencing on
1 November 1994.”

The Board has carefully considered the comments on passing sentence made by Justice Crawford and the Board has also considered documentation, which has been provided to it by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Board has been advised by the Victims Assistance Unit that no victims are registered in relation to the crimes committed by the Applicant and as such the statutory criteria in that regard has been met.

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) a total absence of prior convictions,

(b) the Applicant’s prison record which can be described as exemplary,

(c) a reference submitted to the Board by the Chief Executive Officer of City Mission, in support of the Applicant’s application for parole,

(d) the Applicant’s prison file,

(e) a comprehensive pre-parole report prepared by his probation officer,

(f) a report prepared by Dr Ian Sale after undertaking a psychiatric assessment of the Applicant,

(g) a report prepared by Dr Ian Sale dated 15 November 1993.

The Applicant is presently housed at the Launceston Remand Centre. The Applicant works at the City Mission as a carpenter on a voluntary basis and has done so for the last three years. The Applicant will continue his voluntary work with the City Mission upon his release from prison and he is hopeful that his voluntary position will lead to full-time paid employment.

The Applicant will have stable accommodation upon his release from prison and will be residing with his supervisor from City Mission.

The Board notes that the Applicant’s probation officer is of the view that he is a suitable candidate for parole and it is anticipated that he should successfully complete a period of parole.

Due to the circumstances surrounding the crime committed by the Applicant, the Board was of the view that it was appropriate to have the Applicant reviewed by Dr Ian Sale. The Applicant had previously been reviewed by Dr Sale in 1993.

The Applicant was reviewed by Dr Sale on 30 May 2007. In relation to the Applicant’s current mental state Dr Sale opined as follows:

“That earlier offence appears to be specific to the dysfunctional relationship at the time.

When interviewing during late 1993 there were indications that he had become increasingly depressed up to the time that he had killed his wife. He received some limited treatment through his general practitioner.

At this stage there are no indications of psychiatric disorder. The risk of re-offending would appear to be particularly low in relation to this prisoner.”

The Applicant has been interviewed by the Board on a number of occasions in relation to his application for parole. The Applicant is remorseful for the crimes he committed.

He is acutely aware of the impact that the crime has had upon his children and his extended family.

The Applicant has had a number of releases pursuant to section 42 of the Corrections Act and each such conditional release has occurred without incident.

Given that the Applicant has strong prospects of employment, stable accommodation and taking into account the views of Dr Sale that the risk of him re-offending is relatively low, the Board is of the view that the Applicant meets the statutory criteria to be granted parole.

The Applicant also displayed to the Board during his most recent interview that he had a clear understanding of his obligations to the community whilst on parole.

Subject to appropriate conditions being placed upon his parole, the Board is of the view that the Applicant should be afforded the privilege of parole.

Paroled 21/08/07 – 31/10/2019