spa ar 08 - draft 7 · matters heard via video conference 2,359 2,574 9.1 meetings of hd/pd...

NSW SNSW SNSW STATETATETATE P P PAROLEAROLEAROLE A A AUTHORITYUTHORITYUTHORITY

200820082008 AAANNUALNNUALNNUAL R R REPORTEPORTEPORT

NSWNSW SSTATETATE P PAROLEAROLE A AUTHORITYUTHORITY

AANNUALNNUAL R REPORTEPORT 20082008

Overview 2 Profile 2 Year at a Glance 3 Key Highlights 4 Chairperson’s Message 5 Secretary’s Report 7

Governance 9 Corporate Governance Overview 9 Legislative Mandate 11 New Legislation 11 Consideration of Parole 14 Manifest Injustice 15 Serious Offenders 16 Revocations 16 Suspension of Parole Orders 17 Appeals 17 Composition of the Parole Authority 18

The Hon. John Robertson MLC, Minister for Corrective Services Minister for Public Sector Reform Special Minister of State Governor Macquarie Tower Level 35, 1 Farrer Place SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Minister In accordance with Section 192 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, I have the pleasure in submitting to you, for the information of Parliament, the report of the State Parole Authority of NSW for the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008. Yours faithfully

I H PIKE AM Chairperson 23 July 2009

LETTER TO THE MINISTER

Our Performance 19 Cases Considered 19 Parole Ordered 20 Parole Revoked 21 Parole Refused 22 Parole – Other Matters 23 Periodic & Home Detention 25

Our People 29 Judicial Members 29 Community Members 30 Official Members 32 Departing Members 32 Management/Secretariat 32 Visitors 32 Acknowledgements 32 Contact Details 32

Attachments 33 Operating Procedures 33 Terms and Conditions 41

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The NSW State Parole Authority is an independent statutory body governed primarily by the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. In summary, the Authority:

• decides which inmates, whose sentence includes a non-parole period, will be released to parole; • sets the conditions of release; • determines if and how a parole order should be revoked; and • determines if and how a home detention or periodic detention order should be revoked, substituted or

reinstated. The Authority considers the release to parole of inmates who have sentences of more than three years with a non-parole period. A non-parole period is a minimum term of imprisonment during which an offender is not eligible to be released from prison to parole. The Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999 permits a court which sentences an offender to a term of imprisonment of three years or less to also set a non-parole period. The non-parole period for these shorter sentences entitles the offender to be ‘automatically’ released from custody without the case having to come before the State Parole Authority. Of course, the release of offenders subject to ‘automatic court based parole orders’ is also dependent on appropriate post release plans and arrangements being made by the Probation and Parole Service. When deciding whether to release an offender on parole, the Authority considers the interests of the community, the rights of the victim, the intentions of the sentencing court and the needs of the offender. The Authority considers a broad range of material when deciding whether or not to release an inmate to parole and must have determined that it has sufficient reason to believe the offender, if released from custody, would be able to adapt to normal lawful community life. The principal purpose of granting parole is to serve the public interest by closely supervising the offender during his or her period of reintegration into the community. In all cases, strict conditions of parole are imposed and the Authority may also set additional conditions specifically tailored to address the underlying factors of an inmate’s offending behaviour. If parolees fail to comply with the conditions of parole orders, it is the Authority’s role to consider the revocation of parole orders, including those issued by courts. The Authority may also consider the revocation of a court-based parole order, before release, if the inmate shows an inability to adapt to normal, lawful community life. Similarly, the Authority is also responsible for revocation of home detention orders upon breaches of conditions of an order, and revocation of periodic detention orders upon unauthorised absences or evidence of unsuitability for an order. In some cases, this may involve the substitution of a home detention order for a revoked periodic detention order, following assessment of suitability, or the reinstatement of home detention or periodic detention orders, following three months in full time custody and an assessment of suitability. The Authority may also consider the release of an inmate before the expiry of a sentence or non-parole period if the offender is dying or there are other exceptional, extenuating circumstances.

PROFILE

OVERVIEW

YEAR AT A GLANCE

Items 2007 2008 % Change Matters Considered 11,364 11,622 2.3 Authority Meeting Days 295 299 1.4 Private 98 100 2.0 Public 194 197 1.5 Policy 3 2 -33.3 Parole Ordered - State Parole Authority 880 887 0.8 Parole Ordered - Court Based Orders 4,502 4,880 8.4 Total Parole Releases 5,382 5,767 7.2 Parole Orders Refused 376 294 -21.8 Total Parole Orders Revoked 1,791 2,007 12.1 SPA Orders Revoked 380 424 11.6 Court Based Orders Revoked 1,411 1,583 12.2 Home Detention Orders Revoked 72 41 -43.1 Revocations Rescinded 206 288 39.8 Variations to Parole Orders 165 213 29.1 Authority Formal Warnings 829 936 12.9 Overseas Travel 34 28 -17.6 State Submissions 8 16 100.0 Interstate Transfers (to NSW) 61 64 4.9 Appeals 14 14 0 Matters heard via Video Conference 2,359 2,574 9.1 Meetings of HD/PD Division 50 50 0 Matters heard by HD/PD Division 2,110 1,797 -14.8 PD - Orders Revoked 526 430 -18.3

PD - Order Re-instated 110 104 -5.5 PD - Order not Re-instated 75 64 -14.7 PD - Section 162 Inquiries (attend court to explain absence/incident)

81 88 8.6

PD - Application to Revoke Refused (defective S72 Notice)

22 11 -50.0

PD - Application to Revoke Refused (sick leave granted)

119 103 -13.4

PD - Revocation Rescinded (not AWOL)

3 7 133.3

OVERVIEW

• Officially relocating to the new court in the Sydney West Trial Complex with significant

improvements to facilities, technology and security. • Introducing ‘paperless meetings’ to the Authority by utilising electronic information systems, training

all members to a high level of proficiency in the use of the new technology, while achieving significant efficiencies in reducing costs and providing greater document security.

• Hosting members of the Malaysian Parole Board and government representatives at public and

private meetings. • Undertaking the development and delivery of a customised training program for members of the

Malaysian Parole Board. • Attending the New Zealand Parole Board conference in Wellington and sharing information and

ideas for improved policy implementation and administration. • Strengthening links with the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) to facilitate a process whereby

parole conditions can be combined with the requirements of a Community Treatment Order and support given to interventions by the MHRT prior to the consideration of other action.

• Continuing the program for representatives from the Department of Corrective Services to observe

the Authority’s decision-making process. • Convening seven meetings with victims and victim support groups to discuss the deliberation

process in respect of serious offenders under consideration for release to parole. Providing each victim with modified documents identifying the manner in which the offender was/was not addressing their offending behaviour.

• Continuing to recognise victims at public review hearings and providing opportunities for them to

present oral and/or written submissions.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

Members of the NSW State Parole Authority undertaking Technology Training

CHAIRPERSON’S MESSAGE

2008 marked another challenging period in which the NSW State Parole Authority efficiently managed a demanding caseload within an environment marked by significant change. During the year under review, the Authority met on 297 occasions to consider 11,622 cases compared to the 11,364 cases considered during 2007. There is no doubt that the management of this workload was significantly improved by the adoption of technological innovations that have led to a dramatic change in members’ meeting preparation. Gone are the cumbersome boxes of files and the physical transport of confidential information. In their place are memory sticks and laptop computers to create a ‘paperless’ system that has led to substantial increases in efficiency and security. All members are fully proficient in the use of this new technology following comprehensive training. They all agree it represents an immense improvement to our operations. Greater efficiency in the Authority’s working environment has also resulted from our official relocation in March 2008 to the new, purpose-built premises within the Parramatta Justice Precinct. In particular, the new dedicated court facilities provide a very high standard of technical facilities, comfort and security and have been welcomed by all who utilise them. The Authority was delighted to welcome to these new facilities Madam Nurmala binit Salim Chairperson and the members and Parole Board staff of the Malaysian Parole Board to attend private and public review hearings. This is the result of the NSW State Parole Authority being the chosen model for the introduction of a parole system by the Malaysian government.

Authority staff were also involved in the development and delivery of a week’s customised training for the Malaysian Parole Board members through the Corrective Services Academy. The delegates were unanimous in their praise for the program. Of particular interest were the benefits that the experience of community members bring to deliberations in creating a broader picture of issues and their successful community management. The value of our links with other

related departments and agencies in increasing the availability of necessary resources for effective case management was also commended. The Authority was also able to share relevant information and experience through my attendance with Secretary, Mr Paul Byrnes, at the conference of the New Zealand Parole Board held in Wellington. The ongoing opportunity to meet with our Australian and New Zealand colleagues is extremely helpful in dealing with changes in

legislation and has proven highly beneficial for identifying common issues with policy implementation and administration. There are common experiences with regard to the high number of offenders with mental health problems within the justice system. Many offenders exhibit a complex range of individual issues and needs and it is clearly apparent that a better mental health outcome greatly enhances the public’s safety. The Authority has established a close working relationship with the Mental Health Review Tribunal through its President, the Hon Greg James QC. This has enabled us to jointly explore the effects of changes in legislation and to

Mr Ian Pike AM, Chairperson

OVERVIEW

identify ways we can support improved outcomes especially for offenders who are subject to a Community Treatment Order (CTO) as part of their post release arrangements. Our closer links have assisted with the streamlining of processes involved in the co-ordination of treatment plans and improved our case management role. Ensuring reasonable access to offender management programs is of particular concern when dealing with sexual or violent offenders coming before the Authority for consideration of parole. The Ngara Nura Therapeutic Program is an alcohol and drug program for offenders with substance abuse problems. Access to this exemplary program has assisted offenders with the psychosocial skills necessary for their transition to society, reconciliation with their families and possible future employment. Similarly, Violent Offender Programs have provided the opportunity for intensive case management and recent evaluations indicate significantly lower levels of institutional violence for those who participate. Pleasingly, expansion of the custodial Sex Offenders Programs which have also proven to significantly reduce sexual and violent recidivism is currently underway. Continued availability and access of offenders to all these invaluable programs conducted by the Department of Corrective Services is essential in order to provide the necessary opportunities to address offending behaviours. While on the topic of successful programs for offenders, I would like to commend the Department of Corrective Services for its

support of Glebe House. Glebe House is a residential therapeutic community that assists recently released offenders suffering from alcohol, drug or gambling addictions. It offers them accommodation, counselling, life skills, health, fitness and educational programs to assist in their transition to a more complete life in the community. It is certainly deserving of its very high reputation. The Authority acknowledges the valuable

support of the varied government and community organisations that have assisted with its work during the year. In particular, the consistent commitment of the Probation and Parole Officers of the NSW Department of Corrective Services and the Secretariat and administrative staff who have worked professionally and diligently throughout the year. I would also like to personally express my appreciation to all community members for their

commitment, dedication, hard work and support during the year and for their invaluable individual contributions to the Authority meeting its objectives. I acknowledge the enormous contribution made by the judicial members, the Hon Deirdre O’Connor, Terry Christie and Charles Gilmore and commend them for their dedication to the Authority. I thank them for their ongoing support. I would also like to recognise all official members (our Police and Probation and Parole representatives) for the conscientious manner in which they discharge their important duties.

“Of particular interest were the benefits

that the experience of community members bring to deliberations

in creating a broader picture of issues and their

successful community management.”

The Year in Review

A significant achievement this year has been the realisation of a major business plan objective pursued since 2006. Commencing on 24 Nov 2008, the Authority moved away from using hard copy files at meetings and hearings and entered the modern world of electronic documents and ‘paperless meetings’. A few words on our journey into the twenty first century may be of interest to other jurisdictions. In the Beginning

Previously, the Parole Authority’s administrative processes involved the creation of hard copy files supplemented by the manual photocopying, collation, packaging and despatch of documents for members to read before each meeting. Records management was also a manual process. The computerisation of this process became a business plan imperative.

Following discussions with the Information Communication and Technology Division (IC&T) of the Department of Corrective Services, a project was initiated to not only introduce a computerised records management software platform for the Secretariat, but to commence steps to change the entire approach of meeting preparation.

The key project objectives were to:

• Introduce TRIM • Reduce the costs of the current paper process; - Cost of paper

- Cost of time collating, photocopying and packaging

- Cost of couriers to deliver members’ papers - Cost of storage & retrieval of offsite files • Improve security & management of members’

papers • Eliminate inefficient work practices & increase

staff productivity • Comply with the NSW State Records Act and the

Privacy & Personal Information Management Act

The first step for the Secretariat was to introduce a computerised records management system. A series of group and one-on-one training sessions were organised to familiarise staff with creating files and scanning and registering documents in TRIM. The Secretariat went live on TRIM in September 2007 by scanning and registering all ‘new’ reports and documents received by mail or fax. (Note: TRIM is the endorsed records management software for the NSW Public Service). Implementing Change

In January 2008 preparations commenced to create a fully electronic offender file to move away from hard copy papers. More effectively utilising TRIM was the obvious first step. This necessitated consultation with IC&T staff, the establishment of office protocols to manage the scanning and registration of historical documents and the development of the security groups and file classifications needed to create a new ‘sub-file’ specifically for the SPA.

The conversion of hard copy files to TRIM proceeded smoothly,

however, it quickly became apparent that staff were unable to undertake the time-consuming tasks of culling, scanning and registering historical documents in addition to completing their normal work duties. A business case was prepared and, with the support of Assistant Commissioner Peter Peters and approval from the Commissioner, funding was provided for six temporary staff to systematically process all current record holdings.

By August 2008, the process of converting all active files had been completed. In the process 8,013 SPA offender files were converted to the new electronic format and a further 3,514 files were culled and placed in secondary storage. The stage was now set to move to the next phase in our business plan, the introduction of ‘paperless meetings’.

Mr Paul Byrnes, Secretary

OVERVIEW

SECRETARY’S REPORT

Introduction of laptop computers and USB sticks

The process of preparing for private meetings and review hearings had been unchanged for decades. Agendas for meetings were prepared a week in advance. Each file listed on an agenda was then photocopied for each panel member and the documents collated, packed and distributed by courier. Members would then read the files at their homes in preparation for deliberations at meetings.

Up to this point the Secretariat, in conjunction with the IC&T Division, was proceeding down the pathway of an online solution. This involved exploring further developments to TRIM and the Department’s Offender Information Management System (OIMS) to allow external access to an ‘extra-net’ site. This process was moving slowly due to the complexities and costs of the additional software platforms, enhancements and linkages required.

It then came to our attention that the New Zealand Parole Board had moved away from a similar paper based system through the introduction of laptop computers and USB sticks with their members undertaking meeting preparations by reading electronic documents. The details were discussed via a video conferencing link with Alaistair Spierling, Manager, New Zealand Parole Board Administrative Support Service, in Sept 2008.

As a result, a further business case was prepared to purchase laptop computers and USB sticks which was again supported by the Commissioner of Corrective Services. By 3 Nov 2008, members were undertaking a group training session with the new technology which was followed by a series of one-on-one training which proved most effective. On 24 Nov 2008, the Authority went live on the new system.

I am happy to report that all members have readily embraced the new technology. A significant advantage is the capacity to quickly select or go back to a specific document, to bookmark a page(s) or to highlight a passage(s) allowing quick reference when deliberations commence. Members are also able to add their own notes or comments into the margins of a document and to quickly refer to a copy of the legislation loaded onto their laptops. The consensus is that the new arrangements are far more user-friendly and efficient while also offering far greater file security than couriering hard copy files around the state.

Benefits

The introduction of a computerised records management system has been the catalyst for major changes to our business processes allowing us to achieve significant efficiencies both in terms of cost savings and the increased productivity of staff.

Projected financial benefits are as follows:

Tribute

I would like to conclude my report by commending the administrative and clerical team for their excellent efforts in meeting all the challenges thrown at them this year, particularly their efforts to bring to fruition new systems and practices that have provided a platform for a more productive and efficient office into the future. I would especially like to recognise the contributions made by Mr Robert Cosman, Deputy Director and Assistant Secretary, who was the driving force behind our success and to Ms Laurie Sobhi and Ms Marisol Machna for their hard work during this period and their organisational and training skills.

It would be remiss of me not to also recognise the on-going support of Assistant Commissioner, Peter Peters and Commissioner of Corrective Services, Ron Woodham who had the vision and faith in the Parole Authority Secretariat to support this process right from the beginning.

My thanks also go to Mr Ian Pike, Chairperson and all the members of the State Parole Authority for their very significant contribution to our achievements this year.

• Reduced paper consumption - 150 reams to 25 reams per week saving $33,000 pa

• Reduced cost of consumables - printer cartridges, photocopy charges etc saving $10,000 pa

• Rental of equipment - lease finalised for Xerox 1015S Document Centre saving $19,999 pa

• Discontinued courier service - saving $39,117 pa

• Eliminated staff overtime - discontinued need for twice yearly cull of records system to remove non active files to secondary storage saving $70,000 pa

Total Saving: $172,116 per annum

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OVERVIEW

The following report is prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Bodies Review Committee and outlines the Authority’s achievements in meeting corporate governance, service delivery and performance objectives:

GOVERNANCE

Objectives

Achievements

Meet all statutory obligations ensuring all decisions are appropriate and in the public interest.

• Considered 11,622 cases. • Conducted 100 private meetings and 197

public review hearings. • Considered 1,797 PD/HD cases. • 887 parole orders issued. • 2007 parole orders and 430 periodic

detention orders revoked.

Manage the existing corporate governance framework and maintain a program of continuous review and improvements.

• 2007 Annual Report tabled in Parliament. • Achieved significant efficiencies and cost

savings (over $172,600 in the 2009/2010 financial year) by facilitating ‘paperless meetings’ (utilising electronic rather than hard copy files).

• Introduced operational controls and procedures to facilitate the implementation of new legislative amendments.

• Operating Guidelines reviewed and amended.

• ‘Code of Conduct’ reviewed and amended. • Members’ Handbook reviewed and

amended. • Conducted monthly operational/planning

meetings with staff. • Regularly issued policy/procedure directives

to staff. • Met all Public Finance and Audit Act, 1983

directives regarding the annual stocktake, budget cycle and financial management requirements.

Develop strategic partnerships with stakeholders and improve public knowledge and awareness of the Authority.

• Conducted meetings with victims and

provided access to modified documents.

• Continued to meet statutory obligations to victims and victim support groups by facilitating oral and written submissions at private and review hearings.

• Facilitated training for the Community Compliance Group.

• Maintained the SPA website. • Facilitated an active ‘observers

program’ for staff of the Department of Corrective Services.

• Visited P&P District Offices and delivered presentations on work of SPA.

• Contributed to training courses for P&P and custodial officers at the Corrective Services Academy.

• Established communication protocols with the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

• Maintained communication protocols with the Police Force on provision of information relevant to SPA determinations.

Develop a membership that embraces diversity and is reflective of the community.

Total members: 22 - 45% are female (10 members) - 9% are indigenous (2 members) - 18% have a NESB/cultural

background (4 members) - 23% live in country locations (5

members)

1. Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Legislation Amendment Act 2008

The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Legislation Amendment Act 2008 commenced on assent on 20 May 2008. This Act amended the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001 as a consequence of a statutory review (see below for replacement of this regulation by the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008). The principal amendments included:

• To insert an objects clause into the Act; • To enable the Commissioner to make submissions with respect to the making of parole orders in

exceptional circumstances; • To modify provisions of the Act with respect to the appointment and functions of Official Visitors; • To abolish the office of Inspector General; and • To enable the Australian Capital Territory to intervene in proceedings before the Serious Offenders

Review Council in relation to offenders in custody in NSW under ACT law.

Objectives of the Act Four objectives of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (the Act) have been inserted by a new section, section 2A, as follows:

• to ensure that those offenders who are required to be held in custody are removed from the general community and placed in a safe, secure and humane environment,

• to ensure that other offenders are kept under supervision in a safe, secure and humane manner, • to ensure that the safety of persons having the custody or supervision of offenders is not endangered, • to provide for the rehabilitation of offenders with a view to their reintegration into the general

community.

The new section 2A also provides that due regard must be had to the interests of victims in the pursuit of these objectives, and that nothing in section 2A can form the basis of civil litigation proceedings.

Submissions to the State Parole Authority A new section (s160AA) has been inserted into the Act to allow the Commissioner of Corrective Services to make submissions to the State Parole Authority when it is considering granting parole orders in exceptional circumstances (for example, if the inmate is dying), and provides that the Parole Authority must not make a decision without taking the Commissioner’s submission into account.

GOVERNANCE

The Parole Authority was established in its present form as the Offenders Review Board pursuant to the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1989, which was proclaimed on 25 September 1989. A later amendment to the Act changed the name to the Parole Board. A further amendment to the Act which commenced on 10 October 2005 changed the name of the Board to the NSW State Parole Authority. There has been a Parole Board/Parole Authority in New South Wales since 31 January 1967. On 3 April 2000, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, replaced all the previous legislation, which governed the operation of the Authority. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Parole) Act 2003 commenced on 1 July 2003. On 10 December 2004 the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act Amendment (Parole) Bill was passed by Parliament. This amendment commenced operations on 10 October 2005. On 29 November 2006 the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Act, was proclaimed and commenced to operate on 1 December 2006.

NEW LEGISLATION 2008

LEGISLATIVE MANDATE

This provision parallels existing section 141A of the Act, which covers submissions by the Commissioner in relation to parole orders in ordinary circumstances.

Submissions to the Serious Offenders Review Council Section 71 of the Act has been amended to provide that in proceedings before the Serious Offenders Review Council with respect to the classification of serious offenders, the Australian Capital Territory has the same right of intervention in relation to offenders in custody in NSW under ACT law as the State of New South Wales has in relation to offenders in custody under NSW law.

Minor and consequential amendments The Act was also amended to make it abundantly clear that the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to review the merits of a decision by the State Parole Authority (sections 155, 156, 176 and 177 of the Act). 2. Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentences) Act 2008

The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentences) Act 2008 commenced on 1 July 2008. This Act amended the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 so that an offender sentenced to life imprisonment prior to ‘truth in sentencing’ may only make one application, or one further application, to the Supreme Court for redetermination of the life sentence; and may not withdraw an application without leave of the Court. 3. Mental Health Legislation Amendment (Forensic Provisions) Act 2008

The Mental Health Legislation Amendment (Forensic Provisions) Act 2008 commenced on 1 March 2009. This Act primarily amended the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 and the Mental Health Act 2007. Relevantly, it also clarified the status of an inmate convicted of a criminal offence and transferred from a correctional centre to a forensic hospital during the period of imprisonment (“a correctional patient”); and clarified that the detention of a person in a mental health facility does not prevent the granting of parole to the person.

The Act also provided that the regulations may modify Part 3 of Chapter 3 of the Mental Health Act 2007 (“Involuntary Treatment in the Community”) for the purpose of consistency with the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 with respect to correctional patients, inmates of correctional centres and persons subject to parole; and that a community treatment order made in respect of a person detained in a correctional centre continues in force if the person is released. 4. Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Act 2008

The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Act 2008 received assent on 8 December 2008 and commenced on 12 December 2008 (partially) and 13 February 2009. The objects of this Act included amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999:

• to establish residential facilities to accommodate certain inmates prior to release from custody and persons subject to non-custodial orders (such as good behaviour bonds or parole orders),

• to confirm that immigration detainees and persons sentenced to imprisonment by the Australian Military Court may be held in correctional centres,

• to provide that appointments to the State Parole Authority are to be for a period not exceeding 3 years (instead of a 3 year fixed term)

• to reduce the maximum number of community members who may attend a State Parole Authority meeting (other than a general meeting) from four to two, with no change to the number of community members that make up the pool of people who can be called on to attend meetings, so that the maximum number of members at most Parole Authority meetings is five. (The Chairperson continues to be able to convene up to six meetings of the Authority each year at which all community and official members may attend),

• to allow a victim of a serious offender to authorise a person to act as his or her agent, with the written approval of the Commissioner, for the purpose of accessing documents held by the Parole Authority in

NEW LEGISLATION 2008 (CONT..)

GOVERNANCE

relation to the offender, • to ensure that an inmate, who is not released on parole on reaching his or her initial parole eligibility date,

becomes eligible for release on parole on each anniversary of that parole eligibility date, and no sooner; and that if the Parole Authority orders the release of the offender on an annual review of the offender’s case, the release order will not take effect until the anniversary of the offender’s parole eligibility date,

• to enable regulations to be made that require any of the functions of the Serious Offenders Review Council in relation to segregated and protective custody of inmates to be exercised by the Chairperson of the Council alone.

5. Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008

On 1 September 2008, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001 was repealed and replaced by the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008. The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 substantially replicates the 2001 Regulation, although the numbering of clauses has been revised for administrative purposes. New provisions in the 2008 Regulation include:

• Clause 13(3)(e): In preparing an inmate’s case plan, regard is to be had to (e) the inmate’s history of behaviour while subject to supervision other than as an inmate: - pursuant to any conditions of bail, - pursuant to any conditions of parole, - pursuant to any conditions to which any sentence or other penalty imposed by a court is subject, or - pursuant to any conditions to which any extended supervision order under the Crimes (Serious Sex

Offenders) Act 2006 is subject.

• Clause 203, clause 223 and clause 241: provide for preparation and adoption of case plans for home detainees, offenders on community-based sentences and parolees respectively,

• Clause 224: changed from old clause 215 “(a) The offender must be of good behaviour and must not, while on release on parole, commit any offence… (c) the relevant parole order may be revoked if the Parole Authority determines that it has sufficient reason to believe that the offender, having been released from custody, has not adapted to normal community life” to “(a) the offender must, while on release on parole, be of good behaviour, (b) the offender must not, while on release on parole, commit any offence, (c) the offender must, while on release on parole, adapt to normal community life”.

• Clause 232(1)(c): the State Parole Authority may revoke a parole order before release of the inmate in circumstances in which the Parole Authority decides that satisfactory accommodation arrangements or post-release plans have not been made or are not able to be made.

6. Transfer of Allocation of Act

On 15 October 2008 the Lieutenant Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, approved the administration of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 being vested as follows:

• Section 183(2)(a): the Attorney General • Remainder: the Minister for Justice (now the Minister for Corrective Services).

The effect of this Allocation is that the Attorney General is responsible for recommending the appointment of judicial members of the State Parole Authority. Responsibility for recommending the appointment of community members remains with the Minister for Corrective Services.

CONSIDERATION OF PAROLE

In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Authority considers at a private meeting whether or not an offender should be released on parole and makes a decision based on the written material provided by the relevant authorities. The offender does not attend the meeting. If the Authority decides to order release on parole, a parole order is issued immediately and the offender is released on the due date. In the case of serious offenders, an intention to grant parole is formed initially and the matter is adjourned to a public meeting. This provides the opportunity for any registered victim and the State to make submissions before a final decision is made. If the Authority decides that parole should be refused, it must determine whether a public hearing to review the decision will be held. Legislation no longer provides an automatic right for an offender to appear at a hearing. The Authority will either order a review hearing or order a hearing only if satisfied, by way of a submission from the offender, that a review hearing is warranted. Notification and application forms are sent to the offender after a decision to refuse parole. Offenders who have been granted a hearing can indicate whether they wish to attend or not and/or if they wish to be

legally represented. Appearances are now by audio/video link from the correctional centre and the offender can elect to be represented by a lawyer from the Prisoners Legal Service, the Aboriginal Legal Service or a private solicitor or barrister. The review will be listed at a public hearing about four weeks from the receipt of the application. Offenders in custody who experience difficulties with completing the forms or making a submission are given assistance via the correctional centre's Manager of Offender Services and Programs. If the offender declines a hearing, or does not convince the Authority that a hearing is warranted, the decision to refuse parole is confirmed. The next time the offender is eligible for release on parole is the anniversary date of the earliest release date. If the offender has less than 12 months remaining he/she will be released on the date the sentence expires. In the case of serious offenders, the Authority does not refuse parole initially but forms an intention to refuse parole. The same procedures for other offenders outlined above are then adopted in regards to the question of a review hearing.

Public Meeting of the NSW State Parole Authority

CONSIDERATION OF PAROLE (CONT..)

GOVERNANCE

If a review hearing is held, the Authority will decide after hearing all submissions and considering all reports if it should confirm the decision of intention to refuse parole. If the decision is confirmed, the offender must wait usually 12 months to be reconsidered for possible release on the anniversary of the earliest release date or be released at the expiry of the sentence if that date occurs before the anniversary date. The offender must apply through the probation and parole service for parole to be considered again. If the Authority determines to reverse the decision and grant parole, the offender will be released on the appropriate date. For serious offenders, the intention to refuse parole would be changed to an intention to grant parole and the hearing would be adjourned to allow for possible submissions from registered victim/s and the State.

Offenders are usually released on the earliest date or the anniversary of that date. If the decision is made earlier than that date, the Authority can direct the date to be in a period no earlier than the parole eligibility date and no later than 35 days after that date and, in any case, a period beginning no earlier than the date of the decision and ending no later than 35 days after that date. This provides flexibility and ensures the offender is released into an appropriate post release plan. A serious offender cannot be released within the first 14 days of the 35 day period. This allows an application to be made to the Supreme Court by the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions if they are of the view that the decision was made on the basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information.

In some cases, after an offender has been refused parole, it is possible for the case to be considered again before the offender’s annual review for parole and without the need for an application so as to avoid manifest injustice. Early consideration of a case will only occur in the circumstances prescribed by clause 233 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2001 as constituting manifest injustice. The circumstances include:

• on the basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information; • because the offender had not completed a program, due to circumstances beyond his/her control, and

subsequently completes the program satisfactorily; • because suitable post-release accommodation was not available, due to circumstances beyond his/her

control, and subsequently becomes available; • because the offender had not completed a period of external leave, due to circumstances beyond his/

her control, and subsequently completes the period of external leave satisfactorily; • because a required medical, psychiatric or psychological report was not available, due to circumstances

beyond his/her control, and subsequently becomes available indicating that the offender is suitable to be considered for parole;

• because information or material reasonably required was not available, due to circumstances beyond the offender’s control, and subsequently becomes available;

• because an appropriate community health service that the offender required was not available, due to circumstances beyond his/her control, and subsequently becomes available;

• because the offender was charged with further offence(s) and the charge is subsequently withdrawn or dismissed.

MANIFEST INJUSTICE

SERIOUS OFFENDERS

If an offender is a serious offender managed by the Serious Offenders Review Council (SORC), a representative of the State of New South Wales and any Registered Victims of crime (i.e. on the Victims Register) are able to make submissions to the Authority before it makes its final decision on whether or not to release the offender on parole. The Commissioner, or any other authority of the state, may exercise the power of the state to make a submission. Submissions can be made irrespective of whether the initial intention made is to order or refuse parole. A further change has been made to S135 of the Act in respect of serious offenders. The following provision now applies: S135 (3) “Except in exceptional circumstances, the Parole Authority must not make a parole order for a serious offender unless the Serious Offenders Review Council advises that it is appropriate for the offender to be considered for release on parole”.

If the Authority revokes a parole order, home detention order or periodic detention order, it arranges a public hearing to review the decision. The offender can elect to attend the hearing via video link and/or be represented by a lawyer. The hearing takes place between four and six weeks after the offender has returned to custody. In the case of a decision to revoke a parole order being confirmed, the offender is not eligible for re-release on parole until 12 months from the date of return to custody. The question of parole will be considered no earlier than 60 days before the eligibility date and the offender must apply through the probation and parole service. If the balance of parole expires before the eligibility date, the offender is released on the expiry date.

In the case where a home detention order revocation has been confirmed, the detainee remains in full custody but can be reinstated, subject to a favourable home detention officer’s assessment, after serving at least three months in custody. Where a decision to revoke a periodic detention order is confirmed, the detainee stays in full time custody but can be reinstated, subject to a favourable probation and parole officer’s report, after serving three months full time custody. Alternatively, the offender can apply to serve the balance of the order by way of home detention. If eligible, the offender will need a favourable home detention assessment. There is a provision for the offender to be released from custody on a ‘temporary release order’ to facilitate the assessment process.

REVOCATIONS

Private Meeting of the NSW State Parole Authority

GOVERNANCE

The legislation permits an offender to appeal a decision of the Authority. Prior to the legislative amendments that came into effect on 10th October 2005, all appeals were made to the Court of Criminal Appeal. However, as a consequence of an amendment to S155 of Part 6 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, appeals are now made to a single judge sitting in

the Administrative Division of the NSW Supreme Court. In such appeals, the offender usually alleges that the decision has been made on the basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information. There were 14 new appeals to the Supreme Court in 2008. S156 provides for applications by the State to the Supreme Court in respect of decisions regarding serious offenders. There was no such appeal in 2008.

APPEALS

SUSPENSION OF PAROLE ORDERS

The Commissioner of Corrective Services is able to apply to a judicial member for an order suspending an offender’s parole order and, if necessary, a warrant for the offender’s arrest. Such an order will only be made if the judicial member is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the offender is in breach of the parole order or that there is a serious and immediate risk that the offender will leave the state in contravention of the conditions of the parole order,

harm another person or commit an indictable offence and there is insufficient time to call a meeting of the Authority to deal with the matter. A suspension order remains in force for up to 28 days after the offender is returned to custody to allow time for an inquiry to be conducted into allegations. In 2008, following the recommendations of the Commissioner, the Chairperson suspended the parole orders of three offenders.

Appeals to Supreme Court Year Number Dismissed Withdrawn Referred Finding Ongoing

of Appeals Back to SPA Against SPA 2006 29 17 10 1 1 0 2007 14 6 7 0 1 0 2008 14 3 7 0 0 4

Appeals to Court of Criminal Appeal Year Number Withdrawn/ Dismissed

of Appeals Abandoned 2004 6 6 0 2005 4 1 3

The Authority is constituted under the provisions of S183 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. At least four of the appointed members are to be judicial members and at least ten are to reflect, as closely as possible, the composition of the community at large. Judicial members may be judges or retired judges of a New South Wales or Federal Court, magistrates or retired magistrates, or persons qualified to be appointed as a judge of a New South Wales Court. At least ten community members may be appointed, though only four may sit at any meeting of the Authority. The other three members do not require appointment to the Authority by the Governor. These are a member of the New South Wales Police Force nominated by the Commissioner for Police and an officer of the Probation and Parole Service nominated by the Commissioner of Corrective Services. The Secretary of the State Parole Authority is prescribed under the Act as a non-judicial member and is appointed by the Chairperson to dispose of routine business. As at 31 December 2008, there were four judicial members, fourteen community members and four official members serving on the Authority.

COMPOSITON OF THE PAROLE AUTHORITY

Members of the NSW State Parole Authority 2008

1st Row L-R: Shelley Reys (Community Member), Ross Fitzgerald (Community Member), Faye LoPo (Community Member), Brenda Smith (Community Member), Martha Jabour (Community Member), Marion Dawson (Community Member), Deirdre O'Connor (Judicial Member).

2nd Row L-R: Joanne Jousif (Probation and Parole Representative), Ian Pike (Judicial Member), Terence Christie (Judicial Member), Tom Harsas (Deputy Probation and Parole Representative), Charles Gilmore (Judicial Member), Julia Titmuss (Deputy Police Representative), Lyn Howse (Deputy Probation and Parole Representative).

3rd Row L-R: Yvette Johnson (Police Representative), Maritsa Eftimiou (Community Member), Robert Cosman (Operations Manager), Christopher Whitehall (Police Representative), Donald Saville (Community Member).

4th Row L-R: Ken Moroney (Community Member), John Whelan (Community Member), Peter Walsh (Community Member), Bob Inkster (Community Member), Barry Kilby (Community Member), Troy Wright (Probation and Parole Representative), Lloyd Walker (Community Member), John Haigh (Community Member).

CASES CONSIDERED

OUR PERFORMANCE

Due to its significant workload, the Authority meets on six occasions each week. There are two private meetings (consideration of parole and revocation of parole) and four public review hearings (review of decisions) that take place each week. During 2008, the Authority met on 297 occasions. The total number of cases considered in all meetings was 11,622.

It is quite common for a single case to be considered on more than one occasion, particularly with review hearings for the revocation or refusal of parole, and also where a matter is held over for additional reports or to ascertain the result of ongoing court matters. There were also 50 ‘Secretary Sittings’ for the Secretary to make various administrative decisions regarding a case under consideration. Matters considered include the registration of interstate parole orders and standing a case over to a future date to follow court results.

Parole Authority Meetings 2004 - 08

97

201

3.5

301.5

100

201

4

305

100

188

6

294

98

194

3

295

100

197

2

299

050100150200250300350

Private Hearings Review Hearings Policy Meetings Total Meetings

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Total Number of Parole Releases 2008

Court Based Orders SPA Orders Total 4,880 887 5,767

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Cases Considered 11,541 11,857 11,436 11,364 11,622 Total Meeting Days 301.5 304 294 295 297

PAROLE ORDERED

The principal purpose of granting parole is to serve the public interest by closely supervising the offender during his or her period of reintegration into the community. In all cases, strict conditions of parole are imposed and additional conditions, specifically tailored to address the underlying factors of offending behaviour, may also be set. Parole may be ordered after one or more earlier refusals. Parole was ordered in 887 cases in 2008. Of these, 24 were serious offenders and two were pursuant to

S160 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 2000 which permits parole to be ordered before the expiry of the non parole period if the offender is dying or there are other exceptional extenuating circumstances. The 887 offenders granted parole by the Authority represents 15.4% of the total of 5,767 offenders who were released to parole in the 2008 calendar year. The balance of 4,880 offenders was subject to automatic court-based orders

CASE STUDY - Parole Ordered

Mr A was being supervised on a two year good behaviour bond following a significant history of drug use. In breach of his bond, Mr A committed the offences of supplying prohibited drugs and selling firearms and as a result was incarcerated receiving a lengthy custodial sentence.

During his period of incarceration, Mr A was supported to participate in numerous offence-targeted programs in an attempt to address his alcohol and drug issues. He was then able to undertake various educational courses aimed at improving his skills and employment opportunities. Mr A continued to spend his time in custody in a productive manner by undertaking a work release program and maintaining full-time employment. He also accessed day and weekend leave. Mr A participated in the work release program with enthusiasm and displayed a mature attitude in facing the challenges of reintegration into the community.

Mr A was subsequently granted parole and was released into an environment of full-time employment, stable accommodation and family support.

Parole Ordered 2004 - 08

846

25 6

877940

34 2

9761020

34 2

1056

847

28 5

880861

24 2

887

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Other Offenders Serious Offenders S160 Total

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Parole Ordered SPA 2008 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 877 976 1,056 880 887

Parole Revoked Serious Offenders 2004 - 08

2 3

0

5

1 0 0 13

6

2

11

4 42

10

2

6

0

8

024681012

Convictions/

Outstanding

Charges

Conditions Conditions &

Conviction

Total

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Parole Revoked 2004 - 08

513

943

16847

668 652

168 58

1546

660 670

311101

1742

588 676430

97

763 723

393128

2007

1503

1791

02004006008001000120014001600180020002200

Convictions/

Outstanding Charges

Conditions Conviction &

Conditions

Prior to Release Total

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

PAROLE REVOKED

OUR PERFORMANCE

If a parolee fails to comply with the conditions of a parole order, the supervising Parole Officer prepares a report setting out the circumstances of the breach. The Authority has the power to revoke the parole order. The Authority revoked a total of 2007 parole orders in 2008. Of these, 723 were the result of a breach of conditions other than the commission of another crime. Six serious offenders were revoked for failing to comply with the conditions of a parole order. Breaches included the failure to maintain contact with the supervising Probation and Parole Officer, changing address without permission, leaving the

state without permission, failure to attend a drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre and failure to abstain from drug and alcohol abuse. 763 revocations, of which two were serious offenders, were the result of outstanding charges or further conviction. 393 offenders were revoked for both a breach of conditions and a further conviction/s. There were no serious offenders who fell into this category. The Authority also revoked 12 Authority orders and 116 court-based orders prior to release. Revocation of court-based orders represented 78.9% of all revocation decisions made.

CASE STUDY - Parole Revoked

Mr S had a lengthy history of offending including robbery, break and enter and larceny and had spent much of his adult life in custody. He was initially recommended for parole at the expiration of his non-parole period which was granted by the State Parole Authority. However, three days prior to his scheduled release, Mr S was found in possession of a contraband mobile phone and suspicions were held that he had been using it to make unauthorised and possibly threatening phone calls.

As such, an urgent Revocation Prior to Release report was sent to the Authority and his parole was revoked. He was formally charged and convicted by police for the offence. In addition, an AVO was issued by his ex-partner and other family members. Mr S remains in custody due to his inability to adapt to normal community life.

PAROLE REFUSED

Release to parole is not an automatic right at the end of the non-parole period. S135(1) of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 states that “the Parole Authority must not make a parole order for an offender unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the release of the offender is appropriate in the public interest”. When specifying reasons for intending to refuse parole, great care is taken to include all the issues and concerns at the time of consideration so that the inmate or their representative can fully address those issues at a review hearing.

Should additional issues of concern be identified during the review hearing, parole refusal will be confirmed until the new issues are also resolved. ‘Not in the public interest’ is reason enough to confirm refusal of parole. The Authority may decline to consider an offender’s case for up to three years after the last consideration. Parole was refused in 294 cases in 2008 of which 54 were serious offenders.

CASE STUDY - Parole Refused

Mr M was convicted of his first sex offence at 18 years of age which resulted in a custodial sentence. Initially granted parole, he came to the attention of police and was subsequently convicted of further sex offences including one whilst on bail awaiting sentencing. On return to custody, it was necessary to place Mr M in a special unit of a maximum security facility due to a series of transgressions towards female staff members. Prior to the expiry of his non-parole period, Mr M gained a lower security classification. After seeking an appeal to his sentence, Mr M sought a residential address in Queensland in the belief that he would secure release.

The State Parole Authority refused Mr M’s parole due to the need for him to address his offending behaviour through the completion of sex offender programs. This had previously been prevented due to his behaviour in custody which had prevented a transfer to the lower security centre. In addition, Mr M’s parole was refused due to the unsuitability of accommodation in light of the prohibition of the transfer of convicted sex offenders to Queensland. Mr M’s appeal did not lead to a reduction in his sentence and he was transferred to the Centre for Special Programs to undertake a sex offender program.

Parole Refused 2004 - 08

429

51

480536

32

568

366

64

430

310

66

376

240

54

294

0100200300400500600

Other Offender Serious Offender Total

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

PAROLE - OTHER MATTERS

OUR PERFORMANCE

Revocation Rescinded

If the Authority determines to revoke parole, the offender is invited to attend a review hearing four weeks after they have returned to custody. Decisions may be reviewed if incorrect information has been relied upon in the initial consideration of the case. In such situations, a decision to rescind the revocation order is made to avoid the possibility of an injustice occurring.

A total of 288 revocation orders were rescinded in 2008.

Vary Parole Orders

In some instances, it is necessary to vary the conditions pertaining to a parole order such as the case where an automatic court-based order includes reference to a development program that is no longer accessible or where a more suitable one could be substituted.

213 variations to parole orders were made in 2008 of which one was a serious offender.

Warnings

Formal warnings are issued to borderline parolees who are at risk of breaching their parole conditions. Warnings are an effective tool for assisting Probation and Parole Officers to individually case manage offenders in the community and to encourage improved performance. In such circumstances, the warning is regarded as strengthening the officer's supervisory role as well as placing the parolee firmly on notice that continued failure to comply will result in revocation.

936 Authority warnings were delivered in 2008 of which ten were serious offenders

Victims’ Access to Documents

The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 allows the victim of a serious offender to access documents held by the Authority. Access is provided but only to the extent to which the documents indicate the measures the offender has taken or is taking to address the offending behaviour.

During the year, the Authority held seven such conferences with victims, family members and support people.

Victim & State Submissions

The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 gives victims of a crime the right to make submissions to the Authority when it is considering a decision about a serious offender that could result in release on parole, work release or a similar program. Before a serious offender's minimum term expires, preliminary consideration is given to whether the inmate should be released on parole and notice is given to any victims registered on the Victims’ Register. Generally, the victim is given a minimum of 21 days to lodge notice of an intention to make a submission.

62 submissions were received from the Victims’ Register in 2008. 14 were from victims of serious offenders.

The Act also provides that the State may make a submission when it considers there is other information that could be helpful to the Authority in its deliberations in respect of serious offenders.

7 such submissions were made in 2008.

Commissioner’s Submissions

A recent amendment to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 permits the Commissioner of Corrective Services to make a submission in respect of offenders (not classified as serious offenders) where there is other information that could be helpful to the Authority in its deliberations.

There were ten such submissions made in 2008.

Overseas Travel

Applications for travel from parolees, who qualify for consideration, should be supported by the Probation & Parole Service with evidence of its need. In general, excessive travel or travel for recreational purposes is not approved.

Approval is not given until the Authority is confident that the parolee is stable and has adapted to lawful community living as demonstrated by regular contact with the Probation and Parole Service, compliance with the conditions of the parole order and stable accommodation and/or employment. It is unlikely that such stability could be satisfactorily demonstrated in less than six months from the date of release.

28 parolees travelled overseas in 2008. No serious offenders were granted approval to travel overseas.

Interstate Transfers

Complementary state and territory legislation and protocols provide for the transfer of state and territory parole orders for reasons such as family responsibilities or to pursue work or study opportunities.

Under the complementary scheme, the parole order, once registered, ceases to have effect in the original state or territory as does the related sentence of imprisonment. The laws of the receiving state or territory then apply as if the sentence of imprisonment had been imposed and served, and the parole order made, in that jurisdiction. Where the state or territory offender breaches the conditions of parole, the order can be legally enforced in the receiving jurisdiction.

There were 64 registrations of interstate parole orders in NSW in 2008.

Video Conferencing

The Authority is a participant in the Cross Justice Video Conferencing system. The system is a joint initiative between the Department of Corrective Services, the NSW Attorney General’s Department, NSW Police Force and the Department of Juvenile Justice and was introduced to avoid transport and escort costs and reduce the risk of escapes during external movements. 43 video conferencing studios are available in 21 correctional centres across the State.

The Authority has enthusiastically embraced the use of this technology and was the first court in Australia to undertake 100% of its hearing agenda via a video conferencing link.

In 2008, there were a total of 30,465 Department Corrective Services matters dealt with via the video conferencing network. There were 2,574 matters dealt with by the Authority which represents 8.5% of overall system usage.

Parole - Other Matters 2004 - 08

Year Revocation Parole Order Board Overseas Interstate State Commissioner's Rescinded Varied Warning Travel Parole Orders Submissions Submissions

2004 45 63 454 51 23 n/a n/a

2005 34 40 495 55 69 14 n/a

2006 137 125 732 39 58 10 n/a

2007 206 165 829 39 61 12 7

2008 288 213 936 28 64 7 10

PERIODIC AND HOME DETENTION

OUR PERFORMANCE

Periodic and Home Detention Division A division of the Authority, consisting of a quorum of members including one judicial member, one official member and at least two community members, dedicates a separate day each week to deal specifically with cases arising from periodic detention and home detention. During 2008, the Periodic and Home Detention Division met on 50 occasions to consider 1,797 cases.

Two specific functions are carried out. The first is to consider in ‘private session’ all submissions from the Commissioner of Corrective Services for inquiries under S162 and revocations under S163 and S179 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. In general, the Commissioner may seek to have an offender’s periodic detention order revoked if, for example, they ‘fail to report on three or more occasions’ or ‘introduce drugs into the centre’, etc. The second function is to manage the normal public review hearing agenda at Court in respect of those periodic detainees who have had their order revoked or both periodic and home detainees who are seeking to have their revoked order re-instated. As is the case with offenders on parole, all detainees who have had their orders revoked must have their cases reviewed after being taken into custody. At the public review hearing, applications to re-instate a periodic detention order that has been revoked will also be considered if the offender has served three months in full time custody and has been assessed as suitable to return to the periodic detention program.

Periodic Detention In New South Wales, where an offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment which exceeds three months but is less than three years, the sentence may be served by way of periodic detention which generally requires the offender to remain in custody for two consecutive days of each week for the duration of the sentence. This permits offenders to maintain their ties to the community by remaining in employment and living with their families and contributing to the community through community work. Periodic detention is also a more cost-effective sentencing option than full-time imprisonment. In order to assess suitability, the Probation and Parole Service is required to prepare a report to consider any factors which may affect an offender’s ability to attend regularly, including ability to travel, transport costs, medical condition and employment.

CASE STUDY – Periodic Detention Completed

After starting his Periodic Detention Order, Mr N soon developed a pattern of leave taking. He was also refused entry on several occasions after being alcohol affected. Intervention was sought with the Periodic Detention Case Management Unit. After speaking with the detainee and family members, it was discovered that Mr N was battling alcohol addiction and that it was impacting on his attendance. He was referred and accepted into a local rehabilitation program. Leave was granted by the Sick Leave Review Committee enabling completion of the nine week program.

Upon discharge from the program, Mr N was placed in supported accommodation and returned to Periodic Detention where he was monitored by the Case Management Unit. He was able to subsequently progress to Stage 2 of the program working at an agency involved in regeneration of a local beach and went on to successfully complete his Periodic Detention Order.

Periodic Detention - Reasons for Revocation 2008

25179

42

20 17

20

S163 (2)(a) Fail to report (3) occasions - (251)S163 (1)(a) Fail to comply with obligations - (79)S163 (2)(b) Fail to report following re-instatement - (42)S163 (1)(c) Offender applied for order to be revoked (HD consideration) - (20)S179 (1)(b) Sentenced to more than (1) month imprisonment - (20)S165 AA(2) Revocation of temporary release order - (17)

Periodic Detention Revocations The Authority may revoke an order for periodic detention in a number of circumstances, including where an offender has not attended or failed to report for three detention periods without a reasonable excuse. If the order is revoked, a warrant may be issued for the apprehension of the offender to serve the remainder of the sentence in full time custody or another action may be determined such as having the offender assessed for suitability for home detention.

Periodic Detention - Reasons for Revocation 2004 - 08 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 S163 (2)(a) Fail to report (3) occasions 383 382 322 342 251 S163 (1)(a) Fail to comply with obligations 87 82 72 97 79 S163 (1A) Application to Commissioner on health/compassionate reasons 9 2 8 0 1 S163 (2)(b) Fail to report following re-instatement 20 55 55 45 42 S163 (1)(c) Offender applied for order to be revoked (HD consideration) 33 26 23 18 20 S163 (1C) Re-instated order - offender sentenced _ 1 0 0 0 S179 (1)(b) Sentenced to more than (1) month imprisonment 18 16 23 24 20 S179 (1)(a) Revocation of consecutive periodic detention order _ 2 0 0 0 S165 AA (2) Revocation of temporary release order _ _ _ _ 17

Total 550 566 503 526 430

CASE STUDY – Periodic Detention Revoked

After six weeks of commencement of his nine month Periodic Detention Order, Mr X accrued two absences without approval. A home visit was conducted by his Probation and Parole Officer for the purpose of reiterating his obligations and to give him a warning. Over the ensuing months, Mr X became involved in the standover of other detainees threatening the good order and discipline of the Detention Centre. In addition, he fabricated illnesses and, on one occasion, was transferred to hospital on false pretences.

After further sick leave without approval, Mr X ‘s order was subsequently revoked and he was sentenced to serve the balance of his sentence in full-time custody. It was apparent that Mr X’s compliance towards his Periodic Detention Order lacked commitment and was unacceptable. Consequently, he will be assessed as unsuitable for a future order of this kind.

PERIODIC AND HOME DETENTION (CONT….)

OUR PERFORMANCE

Home Detention

Home detention is a rigorously monitored, community supervision program aimed at the diversion of offenders from incarceration in prison. The decision to allow home detention is based on the nature and circumstances of the offence, the degree of risk a prisoner poses to the community, and the suitability of the residence where the home detention will be served.

A home detention order is still a prison sentence and strict guidelines apply. Offenders are required to remain within their residences unless undertaking approved activities and may be required to perform community service, enter treatment programs, submit to urinalysis and breath analysis and seek and maintain employment. Probation and Parole Officers monitor offenders' compliance with conditions on a 24 hour-a-day basis utilising electronic means.

Breaches of conditions, further offences or unauthorised absences may result in revocation of the home detention order and imprisonment. The Authority has the capacity to respond to a breach at any time and can arrange the execution of a warrant on a 24 hour basis.

Home Detention Assessments

In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Authority may issue a home detention order following receipt of an application from an offender who is either currently serving a periodic detention order or whose periodic detention or home detention order has been recently revoked.

Applications to be considered for the home detention program generally fall into three categories. The first includes offenders currently serving a periodic detention order who due to personal health issues, urgent family issues or other exceptional circumstances seek to ‘self revoke’ their order so as to facilitate consideration for the home detention program.

The second category are those offenders who have had their periodic detention order revoked, are currently in custody and apply to be considered for the home detention program instead of returning to the periodic detention program. The third category relates to those home detainees who are currently in custody following the revocation of their order, have served three months in full time custody and are again eligible to apply for the reinstatement of their home detention order.

A home detention order is only considered where the offender has been assessed by the Probation and Parole Service and a recommendation for home detention is made. The offender must meet the eligibility criteria specified in the legislation and have the nominated accommodation checked and found to be suitable.

140 home detention assessments were made in 2008.

CASE STUDY – Home Detention Completed

Mr K was subject to a Periodic Detention Order as a result of a number of driving offences. In the first two months of his order, he was absent on three occasions without approval and his order was subsequently revoked by the State Parole Authority transferring him to full-time custody.

On review of the revocation, Mr K expressed his desire to participate in Home Detention and he was assessed as suitable. Within a month of commencement, he was not adhering to his schedule and was speaking inappropriately to staff. Mr K was counselled by his Probation and Parole Officer and received a formal warning informing him he was at risk of breaching the conditions of his order. He was sanctioned to his home for a two week period.

As a result of his case management, Mr K’s performance dramatically improved and he went on to complete the Traffic Offender’s Program while also displaying true commitment to his employment. Mr K went on to successfully complete his Home Detention Order.

Home Detention Revocations

If a detainee fails to comply with the conditions of their home detention order, including being absent from their home without authorisation or where they have been charged with a further offence, the supervising Probation and Parole Officer prepares a breach report for the Authority’s consideration. Where the circumstances of a breach are confirmed, the Authority has the power to revoke the home detention order.

In 2008, 41 detainees had their home detention order revoked.

CASE STUDY – Home Detention Revoked

Mr H was sentenced to a Home Detention Order of six months. Two months into the order, electronic monitoring data confirmed that he was repeatedly violating his schedule and he was counselled by his Probation and Parole Officer and given a verbal warning. Subsequently Mr H reported back to his home an hour and fifty minutes late and, when questioned, appeared not to understand the seriousness of the violation offering several excuses including financial hardship and the irregularities of public transport. A urinalysis result returned during this time indicated Mr H was using cannabis. Mr H was then issued with a written warning and placed on a month sanction.

Despite the warnings given, Mr H returned home late after a scheduled appointment on yet another occasion. A breach report was submitted and his Home Detention Order was subsequently revoked. A review of the decision confirmed the revocation and Mr H is currently serving the balance of his sentence in full-time custody.

Home Detention Decisions 2004 - 08

74

34

0 0

56

32

6 7

60

28

4 10

61

35

8 6

69 72

3 6

0

25

50

75

100

Home Detention

Ordered

Home Detention

Declined

Home Detention

Reinstatement

Declined

Home Detention

Reinstatement

Ordered

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Home Detention Revoked 2004 - 08 Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 84 71 79 72 41

JUDICIAL MEMBERS

OUR PEOPLE

Mr Ian Pike AM

Mr Ian Pike AM served as Acting Deputy Chairperson from 2 September 2002, until being appointed as Chairperson on 1 January 2003. He was reappointed on 1 January 2006 and again on 12 December 2008 for a 12 month period. Mr Pike was appointed as a magistrate in 1970 and retired as Chief Magistrate of NSW in 1997. Since his retirement he has acted as a consultant with the Judicial Commission of NSW. He has also acted as a consultant for AusAID carrying out judicial training and education in Sri Lanka and Papua New Guinea.

The Hon Deirdre O'Connor

The Hon Deirdre Frances O’Connor was appointed to the position of Alternate Chairperson on 3 May 2004 and was reappointed on 3 May 2007. As a judge of the Federal Court of Australia, she served as President of the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Australian Industrial Relations Commission. She is also a member of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Peer Review Panel.

Mr Terence Christie QC

Mr Charles Gilmore

Mr Charles Gilmore was appointed to the position of Deputy Chairperson on 24 March 2000 and was reappointed on 24 March 2003 and 24 March 2006. Mr Gilmore was formerly a Deputy Chief Magistrate of NSW. Since his retirement in 2000, he has acted as a part-time member of the Victims Compensation Tribunal.

Mr Terence Christie QC was appointed to the position of Deputy Chairperson on 15 December 2003 and was reappointed on 15 December 2006. Judge Christie was appointed as a Judge of the District Court of NSW in 1993. On 11 October 2006, Judge Christie was appointed as part-time member and part-time Deputy President of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

Professor Ross Fitzgerald is the Emeritus Professor in History and Politics at Griffith University, a part-time Professional Fellow at the Australian Catholic University, and serves as an academic, writer and broadcaster. He was a member of the Queensland Community Corrections Board. Professor Fitzgerald was appointed on 16 December 2002 and was reappointed on 16 December 2005 and again on 17 December 2008 for a 12 month period. Mr John Whelan OAM is past President of the Labor Council of NSW and former National Vice-President, and life member, of the National Union of Workers. Mr Whelan was appointed on 20 March 2002 and was reappointed on 20 March 2005 and again on 20 March 2008. Dr Donald Saville has a long career within NSW Agriculture including Chief, Division of Animal Industries, General Manager (Policy and Planning) and Director, Sustainable Agriculture and Fisheries. He has undertaken a wide range of community service including the establishment of the first Community College in NSW. Dr Saville was appointed on 25 September 2002 and was reappointed on 25 September 2005. Ms Brenda Smith was formerly an Assistant Commissioner with the Office of the Commissioner, Strategic Development and the Probation and Parole Service within the Department of Corrective Services. Ms Smith was appointed on 1 October 2002 and was reappointed on 1 October 2005. Ms Yiah Chan holds a MSc in Criminal Justice Policy and has served as a Research Officer for the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission. Ms Chan was a member of the Classification Board of the Office of Film and Literature Classification and has also been a consultant for online and telecommunications content regulation. Ms Chan was appointed on 1 September 2003 and was reappointed on 1 September 2006.

Mr Robert Inkster OAM APM retired from the NSW Police in October 2004 at the rank of Detective Chief Superintendent having served 38 years. Mr Inkster was appointed on 17 January 2005 and was reappointed for a further three years on 17 January 2008. Mr John Haigh has worked as a psychologist and advisor for the Department of Corrective Services, Department of Health and the Criminal Law Review Division of the Department of the Attorney General. He is a former Chairman of the Aftercare Foundation. Mr Haigh was appointed on 8 August 1997 and was reappointed on 8 August 1999, 8 August 2002 and 15 September 2005. Mr Haigh’s appointment expired on 14 September 2008. The Hon Faye Lo Po’ AM has served the NSW Parliament for a period of 12 years as the member for Penrith. Her ministries have included Community Services, Aging, Juvenile Justice, Disability Services, Women and Fair Trading. Ms Lo Po’ was appointed on 15 December 2003 and was reappointed on 15 December 2006. Mr Peter Walsh APM was formerly the Senior Assistant Commissioner of the NSW Police Force after 38 years within the Service. Awarded both the Centenary Medal in 2000 for Service to the Community and the Australian Police Medal in 1996 for distinguished police service, he completed the majority of his service throughout country NSW. Mr Walsh was appointed on 17 January 2005 and was reappointed to a further three year term on 17 January 2008 Mr Barry John Kilby JP QS is a Board Member of the victims’ support group VOCAL and the Community Aid Panel (CAP) at Newcastle and has also been a Supervisor for Community Service through the Newcastle Police (CAP) for the past two years. He has held the position of a Scout/Venturer Leader at the Teralba Sea Scouts for the past 12 years. Mr Kilby was appointed on 11 October 2006.

COMMUNITY MEMBERS

COMMUNITY MEMBERS (CONT…)

OUR PEOPLE

Ms Gowan Vyse has a long history working in the human services field. She has worked with the Department of Ageing Disability and Home Care as a Forensic Caseworker and currently holds the position of Regional Manager, Office of the Public Guardian, Attorney General’s Department of NSW. She is also an Official Community Visitor with the NSW Ombudsman. Ms Vyse was appointed as Community Member (victim’s interests) on 3 April 2006. Ms Marion Dawson has undertaken a wide range of community service including 17 years in local government as both a Councillor and as a Deputy Mayor. She has served on indigenous, youth and aged committees and was also a member of the Macquarie Area Health Board for 6 years. She is in her 26th year as a Trustee of Mount Arthur Reserve Trust. Ms Dawson was appointed on 6 September 2006. Ms Martha Jabour is Executive Director, Homicide Victims Support Group (Aust.) Inc., a position she has held since 1993. She represents the Homicide Victims Support Group and the community on the Victims Advisory Board, the Homicide Squad Advisory Council, the Sentencing Council of NSW and the Conduct Division of the Judicial Commission of NSW. Her interests are to further promote victims’ rights and needs, with a special focus on crime prevention, particularly in the areas of domestic violence, mental health and juvenile justice. Ms Jabour was appointed on 4 October 2006. Ms Shelley Reys is an Aboriginal woman of the Djiribul people. She is Managing Director of Arrilla - Indigenous Consultants and Services, a private firm in its 20th year, providing services that assist Indigenous Australians and the wider community to work more effectively together in business, government and community environs. Ms Reys is also Vice-Chairman of the National Australia Day Council, Board member of Reconciliation Australia and Director of Indigenous Film Services (IFS). Ms Reys was appointed on 1 July 2003 and was reappointed on 1 July 2006.

Mr Lloyd Walker was Acting Coordinator for the Aboriginal Corporation for Homeless and Rehabilitation Community Services and was appointed Official Visitor of Lithgow Correctional Centre. He is a former Australian Wallaby player. Mr Walker was appointed on 1 July 2000 and was reappointed on 1 July 2003 and 2006. Ms Maritsa Eftimiou has a legal career that spans 25 years in which she has represented clients in criminal, civil and administrative legal matters. Ms Eftimiou has extensive legal experience working with migrants and particularly refugees both as a private practitioner and as a Tribunal member on the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Migration Review Tribunal. She is a former member of the Refugee Resettlement Council of Australia and is currently a member of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. Ms Eftimiou was appointed on 1 September 2003 and was reappointed on 1 September 2006. Mr Ken Moroney AO APM retired as the Commissioner, NSW Police Force, on 31 August 2007 after completing 42 years service as a police officer. He is a recipient of both the National Medal, with First and Second Class Clasps, and the Australian Police Medal and was highly commended on several occasions for his service to the people of NSW. His other appointments include Special Advisor to the Federal Attorney General on the Automated Number Plate Recognition System, member of the State Council of St Johns Ambulance and Chairperson of the NSW Police Credit Union. Mr Moroney was appointed on 19 September 2007.

DEPARTING MEMBERS

NSW Probation and Parole Service: Ms Joanne Jousif was appointed as the Probation and Parole Representative on 8 March 2006. Mr Troy Wright was appointed as the second Probation and Parole Representative on 1 October 2007. Mr Tom Harsas and Ms Lyn Howse act as deputies during leave by official appointees.

NSW Police Force: Inspector Christopher Whitehall is the official Police Representative. Senior Sergeants Yvette Johnson and Tina Anderson are the official Deputy Police Members. Sergeants Tony Astley and Julia Titmuss act as relieving police representatives during leave by official appointees.

OFFICIAL MEMBERS

During the year the appointment of Community Member, Mr John Haigh expired. The Parole Authority wishes to acknowledge and thank Mr Haigh for his contributions during his tenure.

MANAGEMENT & SECRETARIAT

Mr Paul Byrnes, Director and Secretary. Mr Robert Cosman, Deputy Director and Assistant Secretary. Legislation provides for a Secretary, who is ably supported by a secretariat of 22 officers. All Secretariat staff members are officers of the Department of Corrective Services.

VISITORS

The State Parole Authority was pleased to welcome Madam Nurmala binit Salim Chairperson and the members of the Malaysian Parole Board who participated in training, discussion and information sessions with the Authority from the 16 - 20 June 2008. The Authority also continued its close association with the New Zealand Parole Board and was plea