Parole Board Decision

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

And

In the matter of an Application for Parole by Jeffrey Peter Radloff

25th May, 2012.

 

Reasons for Decision

On the 9th February, 2007 the Applicant appeared in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and was convicted of one count of burglary and one count of stealing.  With respect to those crimes the Applicant was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment.  The Court imposed a non Parole period of one year and eight months.

On the 14th August, 2007 the Applicant appeared in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and was convicted of one count of trafficking and with respect to that crime was sentenced to a term of twelve months imprisonment to be served cumulatively with the earlier sentence of two and a half years.  With respect to this sentence the Court determined that the Applicant was required to complete the full term of his sentence.

These crimes of burglary, stealing and trafficking were committed by the Applicant in 2005 while the Applicant was subject to a Parole Order. The Applicant had been subject to a period of parole with respect to terms of imprisonment for crimes committed by him in 1994 being terms of imprisonment of six and a half years and eleven and a half years respectively.

The crimes committed by the Applicant in 2005 were a breach of the Applicant’s Parole and as a result of that breach the Applicant’s Parole was suspended by the Board on the 22nd May 2006 and ultimately revoked on the 22nd June, 2006.

The Applicant became eligible for Parole again on the 9th October, 2009.

The Board has been advised by the Victims Assistance Unit that there are registered victims with respect to the Applicant’s crimes. 

The Applicant has a history of serious offending since 1994.

As indicated earlier in this Decision the Applicant was sentenced to eleven and a half years imprisonment for what the Court described as “extremely serious crimes” committed between the 6th April, 1994 and the 22nd. December, 1994.  In an Appeal on sentence with respect to those crimes the Court of Criminal Appeal described the Applicant’s conduct as “an extended criminal spree” which included an aggravated robbery of a service station and video store, the kidnapping of a seven year old child and a number of aggravated armed robberies, burglaries and aggravated assaults. 

With respect to the crimes committed by the Applicant between the 6th April, 1994 and the 22nd. December, 1994 the Applicant received a cumulative sentence of imprisonment totalling eighteen years.  The Applicant was unsuccessful in his Appeal of that sentence. 

By Decision of the Board of the 26th March, 2004 the Applicant was granted Parole from the 14th April, 2004 to the 5th February, 2013.  At the date of the Applicant’s release on Parole the Applicant had served in excess of nine years of his original sentence of imprisonment.

Following his release on Parole the Applicant had completed less than twelve months of his Parole Order when he breached that Order by his further offending, firstly by gaining entry to a Commonwealth Bank automatic teller machine and stealing $287,000.00 and secondly by trafficking in methamphetamines.

Since the suspension and revocation of the Applicant’s Parole in 2006 the Applicant has served just short of a further six years imprisonment.

Since that time the Applicant has made a number of Applications for Parole.  The Applicant was refused Parole in October, 2009.  In June 2010 the Applicant withdrew his Application for Parole.  He was again refused Parole on the 16th December 2011.

As with the Applicant’s previous Applications in considering his current Application for Parole the Board is required to take into account the statutory criteria pursuant to the Corrections Act 1997.  The Board has been provided with and has had regard to the following:

1. The contents of a Comprehensive pre Parole Report prepared by the Applicant’s Probation Officer.

2. The contents of the Prison Episode Summary prepared by the Officers of the Department of Justice.

3. The Applicant’s Prison Record.

4. The Applicant’s Record of Prior Convictions.

5. Information provided to the Board by the Director of Public Prosecutions with respect to the Applicant’s crimes.

6. Information provided to the Board by the Victims Assistance Unit.

6. Copies of Reports and results provided to the Board with respect to the Applicant’s participation in various programs.

7. Correspondence received from the Applicant’s treating Psychologist.

8. Other Reports and materials provided by the Applicant in support of his Application for Parole.

The seriousness of the Applicant’s offending in particular his offending whilst subject to a Parole Order cannot be understated.

The Board notes His Honour Justice Evans Comments on Passing Sentence dated the 9th February, 2007, with respect to the Applicant,

 “…that he remains a hardened criminal is demonstrated by his involvement, within ten months of his release on Parole, in a break in that required considerable guile and planning.”

Further in reference to the Applicant’s total imprisonment of twenty years and six months His Honour said

 “It is not possible to forecast such a daunting period of incarceration on the Defendant.  In some time in the future it may be that he can establish that he has reformed and satisfy the Parole Board that it is appropriate that he be released.  In recognition of this possibility I order that he not be eligible to apply for Parole in respect of the sentence that I have just imposed before the expiration of two thirds of that sentence.”

Other than the crimes already identified the Applicant’s only other convictions relate to minor traffic matters. For some inexplicable reason the Applicant at age 25 commenced a course of serious offending which has resulted in the Applicant being imprisoned for approximately 16 of the last 17 years.

Since the revocation of his Parole in May of 2006 the Applicant has had five prison offences recorded the last of these relating to a failed drug test in July 2011.  The Board notes that since that offence the Applicant has been subject to a number of drug tests with negative results.

The Applicant has progressed to Minimum Security classification and has remained so classified since late 2011.

The Applicant has been participating in Section 42 leave for reintegration/socialisation purposes since early march 2012 including 24 hour and 56 hour releases.  All such leave has occurred without incident.

The Board also notes that the Applicant has participated in16 separate section 42 leave periods in 2011 as well as leave to complete an educational course.  Again all such leave occurred without incident.

Since the revocation of his Parole the Applicant has been employed in a number of capacities within the prison with positive work reports.

The Applicant has participated in a number of programs and educational courses including the completion of a Certificate III in Construction and has secured a construction workers ’white card’.  The Applicant also commenced the Nupin Parenting program but was unable to complete the course due to his reclassification within the prison.  The Applicant has successfully completed the Preparing for Change, the Getting Smart program and the Peer Tutor Course.  The Board has been advised that the Applicant has used the Peer Tutor program to assist prisoners housed in Medium to improve their literacy skills.

The Applicant is currently studying to complete a Certificate III in Community Service Work.  The Applicant advised the Board that he wished to gain as many qualifications as possible to increase his chances of being gainfully employed on release as he saw this as a significant factor in successfully completing parole.  The Board notes in that respect that the Applicant had made contact with an employment agency to assist him should he be released and he is fortunate to have pro-social employment contacts in the community.

In addition to the Applicant’s participation in various prison programs in order to gain insight into and to also attempt to address his offending behaviour the Applicant during his incarceration commenced private psychological treatment in 2010.  The treatment was discontinued due to treatment costs being prohibitive for the Applicant’s partner.  The Applicant has however advised the Board of his intentions to undertake such counselling/treatment on release.  The Applicant advised the board that the treatment proposed was to help him identify why he offends so that he can understand how preventreoffending. The Board has been advised by the Applicant’s psychologist that with respect to her proposed treatment;

“The treatment goals include reduction of risk of reoffending. This approach will include focusing on assertively addressing risk factors and enhancement of protective factors.”

The Board understands that on release the Applicant would be eligible to access these psychological services via a Mental Health Plan.  It is the Boards view that any period of parole granted would be subject to a condition that the Applicant attends for such treatment/counselling.

The Applicant has made considerable efforts to have in place a large number of supports in the community should he be released on Parole.  The Board has been advised that in addition to the support he enjoys from his partner and her family the Applicant has ongoing support from the facilitators of the Excell program (Salvation Army) and PROP (Pre Release Options). The Board has been advised that the Applicant would receive nine month intensive support on release from PROP with up to three counselling sessions per week.The intensive support provided by PROP will seek to address the Applicant’s criminological needs driving his offending behaviour.

The Board is in agreement with the facilitators of PROP and the Applicant’s Probation Officer that the Applicant is highly motivated to succeed during any period of parole that may be granted to him. On interview of the Applicant by the Board it was clearly not lost on the Applicant that further breaches of a parole order would in all likelihood result in Applicant being required to complete his full sentence of imprisonment. He also advised the Board that any further offending would result in the end of his relationship with his partner.

The Applicant has appropriate accommodation on release. He has good prospect for employment and has extensive supports in place in the community.  He has received extensive support both within the prison and externally enabling the Applicant to improve his personal circumstances and thereby improve his prospects of gaining parole.

The Applicant’s Probation Officer has recommended that the Applicant be granted parole.  While the Board agrees that the Applicant should be granted a second opportunity to be released on parole such release must in the circumstances be subject to strict conditions including the imposition of a curfew, the requirement to attend drug counselling/psychological treatment and a requirement that the Applicant not associate with any Known Criminals.

The Applicant has been incarcerated for a significant period of time. The Applicant will be subject to a Parole Order until 2018.  Reintegration is likely to be challenging for the Applicant and to succeed on parole the Applicant will need to utilise all his family and community supports and the assistance of his parole Officer.

Taking all relevant matters into account the Board is satisfied that the Applicant meets the statutory criteria to be granted a period of parole.

Parole Granted 4th June 2012 to 10th August 2018