Parole Board Decision

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

and

In the matter of an Application for Parole by Dennis John DENNISON

11 January 2008

Reason for Decision

On 10 September 2004 the Applicant appeared in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and was convicted of one count of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm contrary to section 170 of the Criminal Code. It was ordered that the Applicant served a sentence of imprisonment of 6 years and 6 months to date from 11 March 2004. In relation to that sentence of imprisonment it was ordered that the Applicant not be eligible to be considered for parole until serving 5 years of that sentence.

The Applicant appealed the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the Applicant’s appeal against sentence and quashed the sentence of imprisonment of 6 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 5 years. In lieu thereof the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months to date from 11 March 2004 and it was ordered that he not be eligible to be considered for parole until serving one half of that sentence.

On 7 November 2005 the Applicant appeared in the Hobart Magistrates Court and was convicted of one count of common assault. The applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 2 months. That sentence of imprisonment was ordered to be served cumulatively. In relation to that sentence the Applicant was not eligible to be considered for parole.

On 8 February 2007 the Applicant appeared in the Supreme Court of Hobart. The Applicant was convicted of one count of assault contrary to section 182 of the Criminal Code. The Applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 6 months to be served cumulative with all other sentences of imprisonment. It was ordered that the Applicant was not eligible to be considered for parole in relation to that sentence.

In relation to all crimes committed by the Applicant, he was sentenced to a total period of imprisonment of 5 years and 2 months with a non parole period of 2 years and 11 months.

The Applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 10 February 2007.

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

In relation to the crime of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm, the Board has been provided with the comments on passing sentence made by Justice Blow when sentencing the Applicant. The comments on passing sentence fully outline the factual circumstances surrounding the crime committed by the Applicant.

In relation to the crime of assault, the Board has been provided with the comments on passing sentence made by Justice Evans. Again the comments on passing sentence fully outline the factual circumstances surrounding the assault committed by the Applicant.

The Board has been advised by the Victims Assistant 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 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 the Applicant’s probation officer;
2. The Applicant’s prison record;
3. The Applicant’s prior convictions;
4. The fact that the Applicant has completed the course preparing for change;
5. A number of references tendered in support of the Applicant’s application for parole.

When the Applicant was first incarcerated his attitude towards the prison authorities and his fellow prisoners was unsatisfactory.

Throughout the course of the Applicant’s terms of imprisonment, it has been noted that the Applicant’s attitude towards authority figures and his fellow inmates has changed dramatically.

The Board has received reports that the Applicant has matured greatly during his most recent period of incarceration.

When the Applicant first made an application for parole he was housed in the maximum section of Risdon Prison. The Board indicated to the Applicant that it would not consider his application for parole until the Applicant was classified as minimum and he had undergone a number of conditional releases pursuant to section 42 of the Corrections Act 1997.

To his credit the Applicant has progressed through the prison system from being designated as a maximum prisoner to a minimum prisoner. Prior to his release from prison the Applicant was housed at Hayes Prison Farm.

The Applicant had also undergone a number of conditional releases and these conditional releases had occurred without incident.

The Applicant will have stable accommodation upon his release from prison. The Applicant has visited his accommodation during his conditional releases.

The Applicant has also obtained employment prior to his release from prison.

Given the change in attitude which has been displayed by the Applicant during his period of imprisonment, the Board is of the view that the Applicant meets the statutory criteria to be granted a period of parole.

Paroled 14/01/08 – 10/05/09