Parole Board Decision

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

and

In the matter of an Application for Parole by Michael John Brown

9 May 2008

Reason for Decision

On 20 March 2006 the Applicant was found not guilty of Murder contrary to Section 158 of the Criminal Code but was found guilty to the alternative charge of Manslaughter contrary to Section 159 of the Criminal Code.

The Applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of six (6) years and it was ordered that he not be eligible to be considered for parole until serving three (3) years of that sentence.

As such the Applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 18 February 2008.

The Board notes that the Applicant’s earliest release date from Prison is 18 November 2010.

The Board has been provided with the Comments on Passing Sentence made by Justice Crawford when sentencing the Applicant.

The Board has carefully considered the Comments on Passing Sentence and in particular notes the following comments made by His Honour :

“I find, consistent with the verdict, the following facts. He allowed Shane Mayne to drive the Holden Commodore which was in his charge but belonged to his mother. Having been asked by a stranger, who was lost, for directions, they treated him with contempt. I cannot accept the word of either of them and so cannot determine who instigated what next happened, but it was suggested that they run the pedestrian down and the accused verbally encouraged it at the very least. Mayne drove at Matthew Goldthorpe when he was on the footpath. The vehicle possibly clipped him without causing significant injuries. Mayne then executed a U-Turn and once again drove at the man as he ran across the street in a futile attempt to escape. The vehicle was steered onto the incorrect side of the road where it hit the man directly with its front. He fell under it and was dragged along the street for some distance. His death was quick. The speed of the car and impact was between 71 and 83 kilometres per hour in a 50 kilometre per hour zone. I find that the vehicle had been accelerated hard to reach that speed. They then drove away.

 

Matthew Goldthorpe was aged 19 years. He had arrived in Tasmania from Victoria only 2 or 3 days earlier to study at the Launceston Campus of the University of Tasmania. His parents and sister have suffered badly as a result of his death.

 

Mayne was 26 years old and was sentenced to imprisonment for 25 years with a non-parole period of 14 years. However, his sentence was for Murder and he had a bad record for violence and other offences.

 

The accused was aged 23 at the time. He lived with his parents and was in employment and had fairly regular employment after leaving school. He had abused the privilege of driving motor vehicles on public streets, his record reveals over 60 offences in connection with motor vehicles. Most of them were not serious offences when viewed individually, but when viewed collectively, his record arising out of his use of motor vehicles is a bad one. However, he has no record for violence.

 

The crime involved the deliberate encouragement of the running down of a pedestrian. The manner of driving so encouraged was not merely reckless but itself deliberate and callous. The accused must have known at the very least that Matthew Goldthorpe would be injured. He must not be sentenced upon the basis that he knew or ought to have known that the man would be killed, because the jury’s verdict rejected that, but nevertheless this is a bad example of Motor Manslaughter because it involved the deliberate running down of a person.

 

The accused is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for six (6) years from 19 February 2005. He is a young man who has not committed violence or served time in prison before and I am satisfied that early parole is appropriate. Accordingly, it is ordered that he is not to be eligible for parole until he has served three (3) years of the imprisonment”.

The Board notes that His Honour was of the view that this was a serious case of Motor Manslaughter, but given the Applicant’s personal circumstances His Honour was of the view that the Applicant should be afforded the privilege of being considered for parole after serving three (3) years of the sentence of imprisonment.

The Board has been provided with a Victim Impact Statement prepared by the mother of the deceased. The Board has carefully considered that document and accepts that this crime has had a terrible impact upon the family of the deceased.

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 :

(a) the comprehensive pre-parole report prepared by his Probation Officer;

(b) the Applicant’s prior convictions;

(c) the Applicant’s Prison Record which can be ascribed as exemplary;

(d) the fact that the Applicant has successfully undertaken and completed a number of educational courses whilst in Prison;

(e) a report prepared by Dr Ian Sale, Psychiatrist, dated 5 March 2008;

(f) the fact that the Applicant has completed the Parole Awareness Course;

(g) a number of personal references which were provided to the Board in support of the Applicant’s application for parole.

In relation to the Applicant’s application for parole the Board has interviewed him on the following dates :

(a) 8 February 2008;

(b) 28 March 2008;

(c) 11 April 2008;

(d) 24 April 2008.

The Board has been advised that the Applicant has undergone a number of conditional releases from Prison pursuant to Section 42 of the Corrections Act 1997. Each period of conditional release has occurred without incident.

The Applicant advised the Board that should he be released on parole it is his intention to reside with his parents. The Applicant has advised the Board that upon his release from Prison he will have full time employment.

The Board questioned the Applicant at length as to the role he played in the incident and the circumstances which led him to being involved in the incident.

The Applicant indicated to the Board that he was remorseful for his conduct and further that he had matured whilst in Prison. When pressed by the Board as to his actual involvement in the incident, the Board notes that the Applicant tended to down play his involvement. The Board notes that the Applicant indicated to Dr Sale that he denied encouraging Mayne to drive in the manner that he did.

When specifically questioned by the Board as to why it should be satisfied that the Applicant would obey the conditions of his parole and would not re-offend in relation to the use of a motor vehicle, he responded as follows :

“Yeh, well like I said before I’ve grown up a lot since then.”

The Board does not accept the Applicant’s assertion that he has matured significantly whilst in Prison. The Board notes with some concern that the Applicant down played his involvement in this crime. The Board also notes that the Applicant has a significant number of prior convictions, (which again he tended to down play), almost all involving the inappropriate use of a motor vehicle on public streets. The Board agrees with the assessment made by Justice Crawford when he made the following comments regarding the Applicant’s driving record :

“His record reveals over 60 offences in connection with motor vehicles. Most of them were not serious offences when viewed individually but when viewed collectively his record arising out of his use of motor vehicles is a bad one”.

Whilst the Board accepts that the Applicant has made significant progress in relation to his personal circumstances since being incarcerated and that he has made use of his time whilst in Prison to undergo a number of educational courses to improve himself, the Board is not as yet convinced that the Applicant should be granted the privilege of parole.

The Board has concerns regarding the Applicant’s maturity and in that regard the Board has some concerns as to whether or not the Applicant would obey the conditions of his parole given his extensive list of prior convictions. The Applicant’s prior convictions lend weight to the view that he has little or no regard for other road users and in general a reluctance to accept authority. Whilst his prison record would indicate a change for the better in that regard, the Board is not satisfied that the applicant fully accepts his involvement in this crime and the fact that he tends to down play the seriousness of the significant number of prior convictions that he has amassed over the short period he has held a license, indicate in the Boards view a lack of maturity. This lack of maturity may cause the applicant difficulties whilst on parole.

The Board notes that as at the date of this decision the Applicant has undergone a number of 48 hour conditional releases from prison pursuant to Section 42 of the Corrections Act 1997. The Board is of the view that the Applicant would benefit from further 48 hour conditional releases

As indicated earlier the Board accepts that the Applicant has made significant progress towards being granted parole and in fact meets a number of the statutory criteria to be granted parole, but the Board is not yet convinced that the Applicant has significantly matured to enable him at this stage to successfully complete a period of parole.

The Applicant’s application for parole is refused.