PAROLE BOARD DECISION

 

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

 

and

 

In the matter of an Application for Parole by Joseph Cohen Rogers

 

22^nd November 2013

 

Reasons for Decision

Mr Rogers has made application for parole. He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment upon conviction of aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and first became eligible for parole on 1 November 2013.

 

The applicant’s application was heard by the Board on 22 November 2013. Mr Rogers was present and given the opportunity to provide oral information to the Board in support of his application and respond to queries made of him by the Board. The Board in considering the application has given heed to the statutory criteria provided for by the Corrections Act 1927 and consider the following documents:

 

• Victim impact statement of Stephen Charles Mundy.

 

• Comments on passing sentence of the Honourable Chief Justice Lowe.

 

• Prison summary.

 

• Record of prior convictions.

 

• Prison episode summary report concluded by Department of Justice.

 

• Pathways Program report.

 

• Email correspondence Probation Officer dated 22 October 2013 regarding home assessment.

 

• Pre-parole report dated 15 October 2013 completed by a Probation Officer.

 

• List of appointments with Anglicare alcohol and drug provider.

 

The applicant, in concert with another, were convicted of an aggravated robbery of an associate. Proceeds from the robbery was the sum of $300.00 the assault occasioned on the victim was significant involving lacerations around the left and right eye, swelling to the left side of the face, bruising to the back of the head and tenderness to the ribs, bruising to the thighs and knee caps and a fractured nasal bone.

 

In his victim impact statement the victim, Mr Mundy averts to the ongoing traumatic effects the assault has had upon him and his life. He indicates that he remains on a disability pension. He suffers panic attacks, depression and suicidal ideation. He experiences difficulties sleeping at night and no longer drives. He relies upon the care of his sister. He relies on medication and alcohol to relieve his pain and has now been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition.

 

In the comments on passing sentence the Honourable Chief Justice Lowe sentenced the offenders on the basis of the aggravated burglary being a joint exercise of which the applicant’s co-offender was the instigator. It was further found that the events were out of character for both offenders. It was further noted that the applicant had a reasonable work record and was committed then to the care of his young daughter.

 

While serving his custodial sentence the applicant has achieved a minimum enclosed classification and in the last 12 months not engaged in any disciplinary offenses of significance receiving two warnings in August 2013.

 

The applicant has indicated that he wishes to reside on the East Coast of Tasmania following his release and there raise his daughter. At the time of the offending he lived with his daughter in his father’s home in Launceston next door to the victim. The applicant recognises the inappropriateness of a return to this area. The applicant’s daughter is presently aged 2 and is in the custody of the applicant’s father. Upon release the applicant intends to reside with his grandparents in St Helens. Whilst the accommodation proposed appears suitable there is some concern that lapses by the applicant in complying with parole conditions may not result in report to the probation service.

 

In the pre-parole report the probation officer notes the assessment of the applicant as requiring a high level of intervention by the service and the existence of a number of issues that may indicate an inability by the applicant to complete a period of parole successfully. Those issues are the accommodation at St Helens being provided on a temporary basis and there be no alternative prospect for accommodation over the Christmas period. Furthermore it was identified that the applicant had a lack of insight toward his offending, substance abuse issues and poor compliance with previous community based orders.

 

These factors were addressed by the applicant at hearing before the Board. The accommodation provided by the applicant’s grandparents in St Helens was indicated to be available over the Christmas period and therefore was no issues raised regarding the need to access alternative accommodation.

 

The applicant demonstrates significant motivation to provide a stable environment for his young child. This motivation, together with his compliance and engagement during the serving of his custodial sentence and the potential benefit he may derive through having a period of supervised release weighs in favour of granting the applicant parole. Accordingly the Board grants parole with conditions including the absence from alcohol and illicit substances and inability to be on licenced premises.

 

Paroled from 2 December 2013 - 1 May 2014.