Parole Board Decision

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

and

In the matter of an Application for Parole by Gerard Anthony HIND

14 March 2008

Reason for Decision

On 25 August 2000 the applicant appeared in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and was convicted of the following crimes :

(a) murder contrary to section 158 of the Criminal Code,

(b) arson contrary to section 268 of the Criminal Code.

In relation to the above crimes the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 15 years to date from 7 July 2000, which is the date that the applicant was first taken into custody.

No specific order was made in relation to the applicant’s eligibility for parole and as such the applicant became eligible to be considered for parole after serving 7½ years of the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. As such the applicant became eligible to be considered for parole on 7 January 2008.

The Board has been provided with the comments on passing sentence made by Justice Crawford when sentencing the applicant. The comments on passing sentence fully outline the factual circumstances surrounding the crime committed by the applicant.

The Board has been advised by the Victims Assistance Unit, that a victim is registered in relation to the crime committed by the applicant. The Board has been advised by the Victims Assistance Unit that after a concerted effort to locate the victim, the Victims Assistance Unit has been unable to do so. As such no victim impact statement has been provided to the Board in relation to the crime committed by the applicant.

In considering the applicant’s application for parole the Board has taken into account the relevant 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) a comprehensive pre-parole report prepared by the applicant’s probation officer,

(b) the applicant’s prison record which can be described as exemplary,

(c) a number of references provided to the Board in support of the applicant’s application for parole,

(d) the fact that the applicant has undertaken a number of educational courses whilst in prison,

(e) the applicant’s prison file,

(f) a submission prepared by the applicant in support of his application for parole,

(g) the applicant’s prior convictions.

The applicant was, interviewed by the Board on a number of occasions in relation to his application for parole.

The Board has been advised that the applicant is a model prisoner. He presently holds a position of trust within the prison. He holds the position of wardsman at the Launceston Reception Prison.

The Board notes that the applicant will have stable accommodation upon his release from prison. It is the applicant’s intention to reside with his parents.

The applicant has strong prospects of employment upon his release from prison. The applicant has made contact with Employment Plus. It is the applicant’s intention upon his release from prison to upgrade his computer skills and to seek employment in a related field.

The Board questioned the applicant at length as to his motivation for committing the crimes that he did. The applicant indicated that when he set fire to the house he was unaware that the house was occupied by any persons.

The applicant indicated to the Board that it was not his intention to cause harm to any person or persons. The Board notes that the position adopted by the applicant in this regard was accepted by Justice Crawford when sentencing the applicant.

The Board notes the following passage from the comments on passing sentence of Justice Crawford :

“I find that you did not intend to cause personal harm to anyone and that the death of Paul Jackson, who was aged 6 years, was not expected by you. You will be sentenced upon the basis that you ought to have known that death to someone was a likely consequence of lighting the fire”.

The applicant also indicated to the Board that at the time he committed the crimes he was affected by alcohol and was encouraged by his co-accused to light the fire.

The applicant in his submission to the Board indicated that he was extremely remorseful for the fact that a person lost their life as a result of his actions. When interviewed by the Board the applicant confirmed that he was remorseful for the death of the occupant of the house.

The Board accepts that the applicant is genuinely remorseful for his conduct.

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. The applicant has undergone approximately eight periods of conditional release of 48 hours duration.

On each occasion that the applicant has been conditionally released from prison he has returned to his parents’ home. Each such period of conditional release that the applicant has undergone has occurred without incident.

The applicant has commenced a relationship. The applicant will have the support of his girlfriend upon his release from prison. The Board has been advised that the relationship between the applicant and his girlfriend should have a stabilising effect on him and will be of benefit to him in reintegrating into the wider community.

In all of the circumstance the Board is of the view that the applicant meets the statutory criteria to be granted parole.

Paroled 01/04/08 – 06/07/15