Parole Board Decision

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

and

In the matter of an Application for Parole by Troy Ashley SHIPTON

4 April 2007

Reason for Decision

On 1 November 2001 the Applicant was convicted of the following offences:

(a) 3 counts of driving whilst disqualified; and

(b) no authority to drive with alcohol in body.

In relation to those offences the Applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 18 weeks.

On 28 August 2002 the Applicant was convicted of 1 count of manslaughter.

In relation to that crime the Applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 7 years and it was ordered that he not be eligible to be considered for parole until serving 5 years of that sentence.

The Board has been provided with the comments on passing sentence made by Justice Slicer when sentencing the Applicant. The Board is of the view that in this matter it is worth repeating some of the comments made by Justice Slicer when passing sentence on the Applicant.

When sentencing the Applicant His Honour made the following comments:

“On the 10^th October 2001, Troy Ashley Shipton killed Marian Josephine Elliget, the mother of two young children and beloved partner of their father. The weapon which caused the killing was a motor vehicle driven by an intoxicated man with a long history of disregard for the safety or interest of other users of the road. The killing was an act of manslaughter, contrary to the Criminal Code Section 159. The particulars stated in the indictment are:

 

(a) driving a vehicle when his capacity was effected (sic) by the consumption of alcohol;

(b) failing to keep as near as practicable to the left side of the road;

(c) failing to keep a proper lookout;

(d) driving at an excessive speed in the circumstances;

(e) failing to take reasonable precautions to avoid a collision;

(f) failing to maintain proper control of a vehicle.

 

Death or serious injury was an inevitable outcome of the conduct of the offender. The instrument of death was a motor vehicle but it is the criminal culpability of the offender which is central to the determination of the length of sentence. The cause of death could equally have been that performed with a firearm, knife or explosive.”

His Honour then went on to outline the course of driving that the Applicant engaged in.

 His Honour made the following comments regarding the Applicant’s driving

“The course of driving which took the life of a woman, deprived children of a mother and the partner of his beloved, was prolonged and committed in the face of clear evidence known to the offender that he was intoxicated. The death was a product, not of a terrible misjudgement, but the end result of criminal behaviour committed for over one and a half hours. The conduct, by the very randomness of the eventual victim, touches and awakens the deepest and darkest fears of every responsible user of the roads and members of their family. In this case, a number of persons going about their ordinary lives were imperilled by that conduct and the randomness of the eventual victim is in itself a horrific consequence.”

In relation to the issue of parole His Honour made the following comments:

“In the majority of cases, parole is best left to the Board for reasons often stated during the sentencing process, in some, the need for retribution, both communal and individual, requires additional but not separate consideration. The need for general deterrence can be, in cases such as this, a basis for departing from the ordinary approach. This is such a case. A specific non-parole period will be fixed.”

His Honour ordered that in the circumstances of this case the Applicant should not be eligible to be considered for parole until serving 5 years of his sentence of imprisonment.

The Applicant lodged an appeal against the sentence imposed upon him by Justice Slicer.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s appeal. As such the sentence imposed by Mr Justice Slicer was not disturbed.

The Board has taken into account the comments on passing sentence made by Justice Slicer when sentencing the Applicant as well as the judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal when considering the Applicant’s application for parole.

The Board has taken into account the relevant statutory criteria when assessing the Applicant’s application for parole.

The Board has been advised, by the Victim’s Assistance Unit that no victims are registered in relation to the crime committed by the Applicant. 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 following:

1. A comprehensive pre-parole report prepared by the Applicant’s probation officer.

2. The Applicant’s prison record which can be described as satisfactory.

3. Correspondence from the Applicant addressed to the Parole Board in support of his application for parole.

4. The fact that the Applicant has completed the Parole Awareness Course.

5. Confirmation from Alcoholics Anonymous that the Applicant has been a regular participant at meetings with that organisation.

6. A number of Certificates from the Institute of TAFE Tasmania evidencing that the Applicant has successfully completed a number of courses.

7. The Applicant’s prior convictions.

During his parole hearing the Applicant was quite candid about the fact that he has an addiction to alcohol. Prior to this crime occurring, the Applicant was of the view that his excessive alcohol consumption was not problematic. Unfortunately it took the commission of this crime for the Applicant to realise and accept that his addiction to alcohol was problematic. Since committing this crime, the Applicant has sought assistance for his alcohol addiction. The Applicant has joined Alcoholics Anonymous and has participated in meetings with that organisation on a continual basis since being incarcerated.

Whilst in prison the Applicant has undertaken and successfully completed an apprenticeship in cabinet making. The Applicant has strong prospects of employment upon release from prison as a cabinet maker/joiner.

Upon his release from prison the Applicant will enjoy the support of his family and a number of family friends in assisting him to reintegrate into the community.

The Applicant has undergone a significant number of conditional releases pursuant to Section 42 of the Corrections Act 1997 to assist him in preparing for his eventual release from prison. Each such period of conditional release has occurred without incident.

It is clear that the Applicant’s crime was committed as a result of his addiction to alcohol. The Applicant has addressed his addiction to alcohol abuse and continues to receive counselling from Alcoholics Anonymous. The Applicant has made arrangements for his counselling with Alcoholics Anonymous to continue upon his release from prison.

The Applicant expressed genuine remorse for the crime he committed both to his probation officer when preparing the pre-parole report and to the Board when being interviewed in relation to his application for parole. The Applicant is fully aware that his conduct has had a devastating effect upon other persons in the community.

The applicant described this incident as a life changing event for him. He realised and accepted that he had a problem with alcohol.

One of the criteria, which the Board is required to take into account when considering the Applicant’s application for parole is the possibility of the Applicant re-offending. The Applicant’s prior convictions were of concern to the Board. Notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant been sentenced to a number of periods of imprisonment for breaches of the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 he continued to re-offend against that legislation.

The Applicant was candid when questioned by the Board regarding his prior convictions. The Applicant indicated to the Board that in his view prior to committing this crime he did not have a difficulty with alcohol. The Applicant now accepts that he has an addiction to alcohol and to his credit has taken a number of steps to address that addiction whilst incarcerated.

The fact that the Applicant now accepts that he has an addiction to alcohol and has sought treatment for that addiction would suggest that he has addressed the major cause, which lead to him committing this crime.

The Board notes that the Applicant’s latest release date from prison is 4 March 2009. The Applicant has presently served 5 years of a 7 year sentence.

At the present time the Board is of the view that the Applicant should be granted the privilege of parole to assist him in reintegrating into the wider community.

The Board will be making a number of specific parole conditions in relation to the Applicant. In particular it will be a condition of the Applicant’s parole that he refrain from the consumption of intoxicating liqueur and that he continue the counselling that he has commenced with Alcoholics Anonymous.

The Board will also make it a condition of the Applicant’s parole that he is not found on licensed premises.

In the circumstances the Board is of the view that the Applicant meets the statutory criteria to be granted parole.

Paroled 04/04/07 – 04/03/09.