Parole Board Decision

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

and

In the matter of an Application for Parole by Gerard Hind

23 May 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 150 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 fifteen (15) years to date for 7 July 2000 which was 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.

On 8 February 2008 the Applicant appeared before the Board. The Applicant’s application for parole was adjourned until 22 February 2008. The Applicant was advised that on 22 February 2008 the Board would publish its reason for decision in relation to his application for parole.

On 22 February 2008 the Applicant appeared before the Board and was advised that his application would be adjourned once again as the Board wished to seek clarification from the Victims Assistance Unit that the registered victim in relation to the applicant’s crime could not be contacted.

On 14 March 2008 the Applicant appeared before the Board and was advised that his application for parole was successful. The Board published its reason for decision dated 22 February 2008. Attached to this reason for decision is a copy of the Board’s reason for decision dated 22 February 2008.

On 14 March 2008 the Applicant was advised that he would be released from Prison on parole on 1 April 2008 and remain on parole until 6 July 2015.

Prior to the Applicant being released on parole the Board was contacted by an officer of the Victims Assistance Unit who indicated that the registered victim of the Applicant’s crime had been located and wished to place materials before the Board by way of a Victim Impact Statement.

The Board exercised its discretion in accordance with Section 72(C) of the Corrections Act 1997 and revoked the Applicant’s parole to enable the Victim Impact Statement to be provided to the Board..

The Board has now been provided with Victim Impact Statements made by the mother (and on behalf of her children) and grandmother of the child who was killed in the fire lit by the Applicant.

The Board has carefully considered the Victim Impact Statements. There is no doubt that the Applicant’s crime has had a significant psychological impact upon the deceased’s grandmother, mother and siblings.

The impact upon the deceased’s family is significant and the psychological affects are ongoing. Not surprisingly they oppose the Applicant being granted the privilege of parole.

In any application for parole the Board is required to take into account a significant number of statutory criteria.

The impact upon the victims of a crime committed by an applicant is only one of the statutory criteria that the Board is required to have regard to.

Notwithstanding the significant and lasting impact that the Applicant’s crime has had upon the family of the deceased the Board is of the view that the Applicant meets the statutory criteria to be granted a period of parole.

The Board has previously published reasons as to why the Applicant should be granted the privilege of parole.

The victims of the Applicant’s crime have requested a number of conditions attached to the Applicant’s Parole Order.

In particular the victims of the Applicant’s crime have requested that orders be made which will prevent the Applicant from having contact with them.

The Board is of the view that it is appropriate to make such orders in the present circumstances.

Paroled 10/06/2008 – 06/07/2015