Parole Board Decision

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

and

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

10 October 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 of the alternative charge of Manslaughter contrary to Section 159 of the Criminal Code.

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

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

On 9 May 2008 the Applicant appeared before the Board and his then application for parole was refused. The Board on that occasion provided comprehensive reasons as to why the Applicant's application for parole was refused (see Parole Board Decision in the matter of an Application for Parole by Michael John Brown dated 9 May 2008).

In considering the Applicant’s present 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 Board has reviewed the Comments on Passing Sentence made by Justice Crawford.  In its earlier decision, the Board set out the relevant passages of the Comments on Passing Sentence.  In this decision the Board will not repeat the relevant passages of the Comments on Passing Sentence, but the Board once again has given careful consideration to the Comments on Passing Sentence.

b. The Board has been advised by the Victims Assistance Unit that a number of victims are registered in relation to the crime committed by the Applicant.  The Board has been advised by the Victims Assistance Unit that the victims of the Applicant’s crime do not wish to provide the Board with any updated Victim Impact Statements.  The Board has once again carefully considered the Victim Impact Statement prepared by the mother of the deceased.  The Board accepts that this crime has had a terrible impact upon the immediate family of the deceased and the extended family and friends of the deceased.  The victims of the Applicant’s crime have requested a number of specific conditions attached to the Applicant’s parole.  The Board is of the view that the conditions sought by the victims of the Applicant’s crime are reasonable and specific orders will be made in accordance with their request.

c. A comprehensive pre-parole report prepared by the Applicant’s Probation Officer dated 31 January 2008 and an update of that report.

d. The Applicant’s prison record which can be described as exemplary.

e. The Applicant’s prior convictions.

f. The fact that the Applicant has successfully undertaken and completed a number of educational courses in prison.

g. A report prepared by Dr Ian Sale, Psychiatrist, dated 5 March 2008.

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

i. A number of personal references which were provided to the Board in support of the Applicant’s application for parole.

j. The Board has had access to transcripts of its previous interview with the Applicant and the Board has reviewed those transcripts

k. A written submission prepared by the Applicant addressing his offending behaviour and the impact his crime has had upon the deceased’s family.

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. Such periods of conditional release have occurred without incident.

The Board has been advised that should the Applicant be released on parole he will reside with this parents and be under their supervision. The Applicant has been offered full time employment upon his release from prison.

In relation to the Applicant’s last application for parole the Board as then constituted made the following comments:

“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 licence, indicates in the Board’s view a lack of maturity.  This lack of maturity may cause the Applicant difficulties whilst on parole. 

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

In this present application for parole the Applicant was once again questioned by the Board as to his involvement in this crime.

The Applicant now accepts his involvement in this crime. In particular, the Applicant has indicated to the Board a greater insight as to the impact that his crime has had upon his victims and the lasting impact that his crime has had upon the deceased’s family and friends.

The Applicant presented a written submission to the Board. That submission indicated a clearer insight by the Applicant as to the impact his crime has had upon the victims of his crime.

The Board is of the view that the Applicant’s realisation and acceptance of his role in this crime is an indication that he is finally maturing.

In its reasons for decision dated 9 May 2008, the Board as then constituted, noted that the Applicant met a  significant number of the statutory criteria to be granted a period of parole. That situation remains unchanged. The Board notes that the Applicant continues to be described as a model prisoner and is accepting of authority. A clear change from his previous attitude of disobeying on a regular basis  the traffic regulations of this state.

One of the statutory criteria that the Board has to take into account when assessing the Applicant’s application for parole is the protection of the public and likelihood of the Applicant re-offending.  The Board notes that the Applicant has a significant number of prior convictions.  All of those prior convictions relate to the inappropriate use of a motor vehicle. 

The Board is satisfied that it can make appropriate conditions regarding the Applicant’s parole which will provide  protection to the public.  The Board has been advised that the Applicant is ineligible to obtain a drivers licence for a period of 12 months from his release from prison.  As such the Applicant would not be eligible to be considered to obtain a drivers licence until October 2009. 

The Board in this case intends adopting an unusual course of action. The Board is of the view that the Applicant should be prevented from obtaining a drivers licence until the expiration of his parole period which will be 18 February 2011.  The Board intends making a specific condition preventing the Applicant from obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle until that time.

The victims of the Applicant’s crime have also requested that he be the subject of a curfew given that this crime was committed at night.  The Board has carefully considered that request made by the victims of the Applicant’s crime.  The Board is of the view that such a request has merit and for the first 6 months of his parole the Applicant will be subject to a curfew.  That condition will be reviewed by the Board at the expiration of a period of 6 months. 

Taking the relevant statutory criteria into account the Board is of the view that the Applicant’s reintegration into the wider community will best be served by granting the Applicant a period of parole.  During his parole the Applicant will be under the supervision of a Probation Officer and will be subject to a significant number of parole conditions.

Paroled from 05/11/2008 - 18/02/2011