Parole Board Decision

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

and

In the matter of an Application for Parole by Adam Jess Henry SIMPSON

23 November 2007

Reason for Decision

On 7 October 2005 the Applicant appeared in the Hobart Magistrates Court and was convicted of the following offences:

(a) Four counts of aggravated burglary.

(b) One count of burglary.

(c) Four counts of stealing.

(d) One count of forgery.

(e) One count of uttering.

The Applicant was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment to date from 18 July 2005. It was ordered that the Applicant not be eligible to be considered for parole until serving nine months of that sentence.

On 15 December 2005 the Applicant appeared in the Supreme Court. The Applicant was convicted of the following crimes:

(a) Demanding property with menaces with intent to steal contrary to Section 242 of the Criminal Code.

(b) Aggravated robbery contrary to Section 240(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be served cumulative with the sentence imposed upon him on 7 October 2005. It was ordered that the Applicant not be eligible to be considered for parole until serving 15 months of that sentence.

On 16 June 2006 the Applicant appeared in the Hobart Magistrates Court and was convicted of the following offences:

(a) Aggravated burglary.

(b) Stealing.

It was ordered that the Applicant serve a sentence of imprisonment of one month. Such sentence of imprisonment was to be served concurrently with all other sentence of imprisonment, which the Applicant was serving.

In relation to all matters the Applicant was sentenced to 3 years 3 months imprisonment and it was ordered that he not be eligible to be considered for parole until serving 2 years of that sentence.

The Applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 19 June 2007.

The Board has been provided with documentation, which fully outlines the circumstances surrounding the crimes committed by the Applicant for which he was convicted in the Hobart Magistrates Court.

The Board has been provided with the comments on passing sentence made by Chief Justice Underwood when sentencing the Applicant. The comments on passing sentence fully outline the factual circumstances surrounding the crimes committed by the Applicant as well as the personal circumstances of the Applicant at the time he was sentenced.

The Board has been advised that a number of victims are registered in relation to the crimes committed by the Applicant. The victims themselves did not wish to place a victim impact statement before the Board. The Board however has received documentation from the Victims Assistance Unit outlining the effects that the Applicant’s crime has had upon his victims.

A number of the Applicant’s victims have sought specific conditions, which will prevent the Applicant coming into contact with them. The Board is of the view that the making of such conditions in this case is appropriate.

This is not the Applicant’s first application for parole. The Applicant made an application for parole on 13 July 2007. That application was refused as a result of the Board receiving information that the Applicant had committed a prison offence.

The Applicant made a further application for parole on 26 October 2007. That application was adjourned as at that time the Applicant was undergoing treatment for his drug addiction.

On 23 November 2007 the Applicant re-appeared before the Board. At that time the board was advised that the Applicant had successfully undergone treatment for his drug addiction. It is anticipated that the Applicant will continue to receive counselling for his drug addiction upon his release from prison.

In considering the Applicant’s application for parole the Board has taken into account the 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:

1. A comprehensive pre-parole report prepared by his Probation Officer.
2. An addendum to that pre-parole report.
3. The Applicant’s prison record, which can be described as satisfactory.
4. The Applicant’s prior convictions.
5. A report prepared by the person who provided treatment to the Applicant regarding his drug addiction.
6. The fact that the Applicant has completed a number of educational courses whilst in prison.
7. The fact that the Applicant has completed the parole awareness course.

As indicated earlier in this decision, the Applicant prior to his incarceration was addicted to illicit substances. The majority of the crimes committed by the Applicant were committed as a result of his addiction to illicit substances.

The Applicant has sought treatment for his drug addiction whilst in prison. The Applicant intends undergoing further treatment for his drug addiction upon his release from prison.

It is the Applicant’s intention to seek employment upon his release from prison. The Applicant will have stable accommodation upon his release from prison.

Given that the Applicant has sought assistance for his drug use and such assistance will be ongoing upon his release from prison, the Board is of the view that the Applicant should be granted the privilege of parole.

The Board also notes that the Applicant’s earliest release date from prison is 17 April 2008. The Board is of the view that the Applicant’s reintegration into the community will best be served by him being under the supervision of a probation officer and specific conditions attaching to his conditional release which will require him to continue to obtain assistance for his drug addiction.

Paroled 11 December 2007 – 17 October 2008