PAROLE BOARD DECISION

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

And

In the matter of an application for parole by Adrian Alwyn Pickett

7^th February 2014

Reasons for Decision

The Applicant appeared in the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 1 May 2002 and was convicted of two counts of aggravated armed robbery. The Applicant was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. The Court ordered the Applicant not be eligible for parole until he had served 5 ½ years of imprisonment.

On 21 October 2002 the Applicant appeared in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania and was convicted of common assault and injure property. The Applicant was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment to be served cumulatively to the earlier sentence.

On the 30 April 2004 the Applicant appeared in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and was convicted of one count of wounding. The Applicant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be served cumulatively with the earlier sentences. With respect to this sentence the court imposed a non-parole period of six months.

On 14 November 2005 the Applicant appeared in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and was convicted of one count of assault. The Applicant was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment to be served cumulatively with the earlier sentences.

On the 14 September 2006 the Applicant appeared in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania and was convicted of common assault and sentenced to 42 days imprisonment.

On the 24 May 2007 the Applicant appeared in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and was convicted of one count of conspiracy and one count of perverting the course of justice. The Applicant was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment to be served cumulatively to his earlier sentences. With respect to this sentence of imprisonment the court ordered that the Applicant not be eligible for parole until he had served two thirds of the sentence.

On the 4 May 2010 the Applicant appeared in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania and was convicted of two counts of assaulting a public officer and was sentenced to 2 months and a further 10 weeks imprisonment.

On the 23 March 2012 the Applicant appeared in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and was sentenced to one count of unlawfully setting fire to property. The Applicant was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment with respect to that offending.

The Applicant became eligible for parole on 21 February 2013. The Applicant was refused parole in August 2013.

The Board has been advised by the Victims Assistance Unit that there are no registered victims with respect to the Applicant’s crimes.

In considering the Applicant’s application for parole the Board has had regard to the statutory criteria as required pursuant to the provisions of the Corrections Act 1997. The Board has been provided with and has had regard to the following material:

1. A comprehensive pre-parole report prepared by the Applicant’s probation officer;
2. A prison episode summary report prepared by the officers of the Department of Justice;
3. The Applicant’s record of prior convictions;
4. Information provided to the Board by the Victims Assistance Unit;
5. Documents provided to the Board by the Director of Public Prosecutions with respect to the Applicant’s crimes;
6. Reports provided to the Board prepared by facilitators of various prison programmes completed by the Applicant during his incarceration;
7. The Applicant’s written application for parole together with correspondence received from the Applicant and in support of the Applicant’s application for parole including correspondence received from the Applicant’s legal counsel;
8. A report prepared by Dr Georgina O’Donnell forensic clinical psychologist dated 13 August 2013 with respect to the Applicant requested by the Board;
9. Reports prepared by Dr Lester A. Walton Consultant Psychiatrist dated 28 January 2010 and 5 September 2011 with respect to the Applicant.
10. Justice Woods oral reasons for judgement in Pickett v The State of Tasmania delivered on the 11^th of April 2011.

The Applicant’s criminal history, his personal circumstances coupled with the significant period of incarceration to date and the various issues associated with that incarceration make this a complex and difficult matter for determination.

The Applicant has a significant history of prior convictions for both non-violent and violent offending. The Applicant was convicted of assault in 1987 and in 2000 was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment for aggravated armed robbery. He has been incarcerated since 2000 and has now spent nearly 14 years in prison. As noted above the Applicant has continued to offend while incarcerated. His offending includes serious crimes with respect to which the Applicant received further sentences of imprisonment.

The Applicant claims that much of this internal offending arose due to his frustration and despair with respect to his circumstances whilst incarcerated.

Her Honour Justice Wood provided a summary of those circumstances in her comments on passing sentence made on the 23 of March 2012 with respect to the Applicant’s offending in early 2011. Her Honour stated:

"Mr Pickett had been an inmate of the prison since 2000. Apart from a period of 5 months he has spent the entirety of that time segregated from other prisoners or in solitary confinement. He has been kept at the Tamar Unit for a long time with uncertainty about if and when he would return to the mainstream prison population, and what he needed to do to satisfy the prison authorities that he could return. There was a lack of information provided to Mr Pickett about how he could progress and improve his prospects within the prison regime. At one stage he was transferred to a prison interstate believing it was a long term placement in response to his concerns but in fact, it was only a temporary measure to address security concerns. While kept in the Tamar Unit he typically spent 23 hours a day in solitary confinement with few if any constructive activities, and no access to rehabilitation programs. His mental well being has been adversely affected by his long term isolation."

The Applicant successfully brought civil proceeding in the Supreme Court of Tasmania with respect to his treatment during his incarceration within the Tamar Unit at the Risdon Prison. In those proceedings her Honour Justice Wood ordered:

"That there be a declaration 'That the way in which the Behavioural Management Program in the Tamar Unit of the Risdon Prison Complex, which Program is described in the attached Amended Statement of Claim in this action, was applied to the Plaintiff by the Defendant between 25 October 2006 and 21 February 2011 was in contravention of the provisions of s 4 and s 29 of the Corrections Act 1997 and accordingly was in breach of the Defendant's duty of care to the Plaintiff'"

The outcome of those proceedings resulted in changes in the management of the Applicant by Prison Authorities which have clearly impacted in a positive way upon the Applicant’s overall behaviour.

Since 2000 the Applicant has committed in excess of 30 internal prison offences which included offences of violence with respect to which the Applicant was convicted and sentenced to further terms of imprisonment as noted above. At least five of those internal offences relate to the Applicant’s ongoing drug use whilst incarcerated. There has been no internal offending related to matters of violence for in excess of 18 months. The Applicant’s last two internal offences in November 2012 and July 2013 were drug use related. The most recent of these significantly contributed to the Board’s refusal of the Applicant’s prior application for Parole. Since that time the Applicant has remained offence free. The Applicant has progressed to medium security classification and has participated on the Suboxone program whilst incarcerated to assist in addressing his drug issues.

Since 2011 the Applicant has completed virtually all prison programs available to him including individual counselling in anger management, the Turning Point Program, the Making Choices Program and the Getting Smart drug and Alcohol Program which the Applicant completed post his last relapse into drug taking. The Applicant’s participation in that program has been described by the facilitators as very positive and stating that “Mr Pickett participated to a high level throughout the program.” It was noted by facilitators that he has made considerable changes to his thinking since previous program participation.

In August 2013 the Board requested and received a report from consultant psychologist Dr O’Donnell with respect to the Applicant generally and particularly addressing the likelihood of the Applicant reoffending on release from prison. Dr O’Donnell concluded that having interviewed the Applicant and administered to him a number of structured assessments tools that ‘the Applicant is likely to experience challenges during community integration after such a lengthy period of incarceration, and potential exposure to destabilisers in the community,’ and that his assessment scores place him ‘amongst a group of individuals who would be considered to be a high risk for engaging in future violent reoffending behaviour in the absence of appropriate risk management strategies.’

Dr O’Donnell identifies the following risk management strategies to reduce the risk of future violent offending in the community by the Applicant:

• Cessation of alcohol and other recreational drug use (and random urinalysis).
• Conditional participation in substance use treatment program supervised by GP (preferably with support from special services eg. Drug and Alcohol service DHHS).
• Utilization of pro-social support networks.
• Engagement in meaningful activity(eg vocational training and employment).
• Avoidance of antisocial peers.
• Ongoing focus of adaptive coping strategies and conflict resolution.
• Engagement in arousal reducing relaxation activities (eg exercise).
• Intensive supervision by community Corrections by an experienced parole officer with sound knowledge of psychopathy and associated risk management strategies.

Dr O’Donnell has expressed reservations given his history as to the Applicant’s ability to resist engaging in further criminal activity if he is released either on parole or upon completion of his sentence.

As indicated to the Applicant by the Board with respect to his earlier application for parole the Board believes that the Applicant would benefit from reintegration leave before release into the community. Decisions to grant such leave pursuant to section 42 of the Corrections Act 1997 are at the discretion of the prison authorities. The Applicant has made numerous applications for such leave. All those applications have been refused. The Board having enquired of the prospects of the Applicant being granted such leave in the future was advised that it was unlikely that the Applicant would ever be granted such leave for reintegration purposes.

The Applicant has been incarcerated for nearly 14 years. His earliest release date from prison is the 17^th of October 2016. It is the opinion of Dr O’Donnell that the Applicant “is an institutionalised man, who has never lived as an independent adult in the community for an extended period of time.” In the Board’s view assisted reintegration for the Applicant together with a risk management plan is essential for him to have any prospect of his remaining offence free on release.

In these circumstances supported reintegration and appropriate management of risk reduction strategies can only, in the Applicant’s case, be implemented in a supervised environment if the Applicant is granted a period of parole subject to appropriate conditions.

The Board notes that the Applicant has in place on release significant support from the REO Program. The Applicant’s case plan includes, in addition to securing independent accommodation, medical and health management, management of substance abuse issues, financial management, employment and training, education, recreation and family goals.

The Applicant has also engaged with the Red Cross Peer Mentoring Program which offers support to released inmates.

He has appropriate accommodation on release with a family member until he secures his own accommodation with the assistance of REO.

The Applicant has recently withdrawn from the Suboxone program with the support and assistance of Dr Wake and if released has in place referrals and appointments to undergo drug counselling.

It is the Boards view that it is both in the interests of the community and the Applicant that the Applicant be subject to a long period of supervised release subject to strict conditions which are designed to promote reintegration and rehabilitation of the Applicant and enable the management of an appropriate strategy for minimising the risks of the Applicant engaging in further offending behaviour.

Conditional release with the imposition of an extended curfew, conditions requiring no association with former and current pro-criminal associates, prohibition on use of drugs and alcohol and attendance at licenced premises, the requirement to attend drug and alcohol counselling, anger management and any other programs required by the Applicant’s supervising parole officer will assist the Applicant to minimise his risk of reoffending while still affording some protection to the public. The Applicant on release will be subject to regular curfew checks carried out by Tasmania Police, random drug tests and active and ongoing intensive supervision from Community Corrections for a period well beyond what would have been his earliest release date from prison.

It is the view of the Board that release in these circumstances is preferable to the release of a long term institutionalised offender into the community without supervision and without any supports or risk management strategies in place.

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

Paroled from 24 February 2014 - 22 June 2017