Parole Board Decision

In the matter of the Corrections Act 1997

and

In the matter of an Application for Parole by Troy Matthew Philpott

26 June 2015

Reasons for Decision

Troy Matthew Philpott ("the applicant") has made application for parole. He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment as follows:

• 15 years murder;
• 2 years escape;
• 10 years for aggravated burglary (x5);
• Burglary, stealing (x6);
• Aggravated armed robbery.

The applicant first became eligible for consideration for parole on the 5 April 2015.

On assessing this application for parole it was considered necessary to obtain the report of a psychologist and accordingly report was commissioned from Mr Damien Minehan. That report is dated 15 June 2015.

On 22 November 1994 upon his conviction of murder the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for his natural life whilst still under that sentence on 4 May 2000 he escaped from the prison workshop.

The escape was opportunistic and did not involve the use of violence.

Whilst the applicant remained at large he engaged in offending behaviour giving rise to the convictions for aggravated burglary, burglary, stealing and armed robbery. The offending involved the applicant breaking into dwelling houses and stealing property.

On the 16 October 2006 the applicant applied for resentencing in respect of the conviction of murder pursuant to the Criminal Code Amendment (Life Prisoners & Dangerous Criminals) Act 1994. At that time the sentence imposed was for the term of the applicant’s natural life with a non-parole period set at 15 years. It was noted by the Honourable Chief Justice Underwood (as he then was) at that time that the applicant in concert with another and in a premeditated manner (albeit for a short period) caused the death of another without apparent justification or explanation beyond a dislike for the victim’s attitude and behaviour. The absence of remorse was also noted. What was known of a psychiatric assessment undertaken of the applicant at that time, the report itself not being released to the court, provided no explanation for his conduct.

As previously indicated at the request of the Board the applicant was assessed by a psychologist, Mr Minehan. Following that assessment Mr Minehan undertook an assessment of the applicant’s risk. In this analysis he noted the absence of prior convictions for matters of serious violence, a history of antisocial behaviour and significant substance abuse issues and he expressed the opinion that the applicant has an antisocial personality disorder. It was noted that he has an antiauthoritarian perspective and accordingly may well struggle with compliance to rules and regulations as would be typical of a parole order. Nevertheless it is noted that he has been able to progress his classification to minimum whilst serving his custodial sentence and does not appear to have engaged in any internal offending behaviour for the past 12 months. Further it appears from Mr Minehan’s discussion with the applicant that he is aware of the need to observe and comply with the supervision requirements of the Parole Board if he were released on a parole order and felt he had the capacity to do so.

Identifying the contributing factors toward the applicant’s offending behaviour Mr Minehan notes a dysfunctional upbringing, early substance abuse, early antisocial socialisation, anger and personality disorder as being all significant factors.

The Board note that whilst serving his custodial sentence the applicant has engaged in psychological therapy for a long period and actively participated in courses by way of Making Choices and Pathways and in the latter part of his custodial sentence the applicant appears to have undergone change. He has been trusted to work in the Risdon Vale Dogs Home and undertake fencing in the community by way of section 42 releases. He has also participated in the Pups on Parole Program within the custodial environment. Section 42 releases have been undertaken without issue allowing him to stay with his aunt.

The applicant appears to have established good direction and plans for his life beyond the custodial walls. He proposes to be engaged in work at the Dogs Home between 9 AM to 5 PM and also performing track work within the racing industry.

Proposed accommodation at a church property of the Christian Family Church has been assessed as suitable.

This applicant would benefit from the opportunity of a parole order. He requires supervision and assistance with respect to remaining alcohol and drug abstinent and developing and maintaining prosocial relationships.

Whilst as a 17-year-old he engaged in egregious conduct which to fair-minded individuals was both inexplicable and repugnant and indeed described by the initial sentencing judge, the Honourable Chief Justice Cox (as he was then) in the following terms:

“… At a loss to understand how a youth of 18 even if your sensibilities were blunted by alcohol and/or drugs could deliberately take the life of another a few months younger than himself for so paltry a reason as that advanced by him”.

Nevertheless the applicant has displayed changed and more mature behaviour. He is compliant with rules and regulations of the custodial environment whereas previously he was not. He has engaged in programs and has been engaged within the community by way of section 42 releases without concern.

Under the supervision of a parole order subject to conditions removing his ability to take alcohol or drugs, requiring him to be compliant with a curfew and to maintain counselling the risk that this applicant may present to the community is substantially lessened whilst the efforts and advances made with regard to the rehabilitation of the applicant can be advanced within the community setting.

On considering the application for parole regard has been paid to the applicant’s appearance before the Board together with a number of documents most particularly the following:

• The applicant’s application;
• Victim impact statement;
• Comments on passing sentences and resentencing;
• Record of prior convictions;
• Prison episode summary;
• Reports and the like from courses undertaken and completed by the applicant;
• Pre-parole report;
• Report of Mr Minehan of 25 June 2015.

In assessment of the application regard has been had to the statutory criteria established by the Corrections Act 1997. In the application of that criteria it is determined by the Board that this application for parole be approved.

Paroled from 6 July 2015 - Life