Transcript — Parole: Closing the loop in the sentencing process

Debbie Kilroy:

Hello, welcome to this edition of Sentencing Matters, a podcast from the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council.

I’m Debbie Kilroy, a member of the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council. In this edition I’m speaking with Julie Sharp, Deputy President of the Queensland Parole Board, who was appointed in June 2017. Welcome Julie.

Julie Sharp:

Thanks Debbie.

Debbie Kilroy:

Can you just tell us a bit about your background, and how you came to be appointed on the Parole Board?

Julie Sharp:

Sure. Well, my background is primarily in criminal defence, so I started my career as a law clerk at Legal Aid Queensland more than 20 years ago, and progressed through the ranks there, and ultimately found myself as in-house counsel at Legal Aid. I then went to the private bar where again I focused on criminal defence work but also prosecuted, and I’ve done work in other areas of the government and in the coronial sphere as well.

Debbie Kilroy:

So there’s obviously other members of the Board, so Michael Byrne, QC and Peter Shields. Can you just tell us a bit about their background?

Julie Sharp:

Michael Byrne, QC is a well-known and well-respected barrister. His background is in prosecution and defence, so a long history in criminal law. He was an acting District Court Judge at one stage. Peter Shields has experience in criminal defence as well, but started his career in the criminal justice system as a police officer. So the three of us come from a background in criminal law, all of us experienced in that area and very interested in parole.

Debbie Kilroy:

And there’s other professional members on the Parole Board, so is it three lawyers and one psychologist, is that right?

Julie Sharp:

Three lawyers, so four professional Board members, three lawyers, all very experienced, and one health member, who has a background in psychiatric nursing, she had a background in prison mental health services.

Debbie Kilroy:

Okay, great. And they’re the - and so yourself, Michael and Peter and the other four professional Board members are the full time members of the Parole Board of Queensland?

Julie Sharp:

Yes, we comprise part of the full time membership. In addition to that there are police representatives, three permanent police representatives, three permanent public service representatives who come from a background in probation and parole.

Debbie Kilroy:

And then there’s other members that aren’t full time?

Julie Sharp:

Yes.

Debbie Kilroy:

So where do they come from?

Julie Sharp:

They’re community members, so they come from a range of backgrounds across the state of Queensland, some from law backgrounds, but not all. They’re members of the community who expressed interest in being part of the new Parole Board. There’s a community member on each member of the Board, and they rotate through. There are men, women, Indigenous members, as I said, ranging in backgrounds from people who own bookstores to people with a background in media, people who have backgrounds in social work and psychology, a very broad range of the community.

Debbie Kilroy:

So people from the community.

Julie Sharp:

That’s right.

Debbie Kilroy:

And so how does the actual Parole Board work?

Julie Sharp:

The Parole Board sits usually with five members to decide parole applications. So the legislation dictates how many members for what kind of matter, and I won’t go into all of that detail. But by and large there’s a five member board chaired by either Michael, Peter or myself, with one each of the other categories of permanent board members, so a professional board member, police, a public service representative and a community member. In advance of the meetings we will have read material relating to the parole applications and considered it ourselves, and then one by one we go through each application and consider it, discuss it, and decide it.

Debbie Kilroy:

Okay. If we take a step back from it, so the Parole Board is an independent Board?

Julie Sharp:

That’s right, so it’s an independent statutory body, independent of Corrective Services, and that’s a really important part of the operation of the Parole Board, we’re not answerable to the government, we’re not answerable to the media, we operate as a completely independent body.

Debbie Kilroy:

And your decisions stand as an independent body.

Julie Sharp:

That’s right.

Debbie Kilroy:

Yep. So you’re not part of Corrective Services.

Julie Sharp:

No.

We of course seek information and obtain information from all sorts of sources, including importantly Corrective Services. Accommodation is a big issue for people applying for parole, and each parolee, or parole applicant is required to submit an address for assessment. The Parole Board is given an assessment conducted by Probation and Parole, but a determination that the accommodation’s not suitable by that part of Corrective Services isn’t determinative. The Parole Board will independently decide whether it thinks that the accommodation is suitable or not. So that’s just one example of the independence.

Debbie Kilroy:

Sure. And in Queensland we have two types of parole?

Court-ordered parole, and parole where you get an eligibility date from the court. Can you just explain the difference between the two?

Julie Sharp:

Sure. So court-ordered parole is exactly that, it’s ordered by the sentencing court. It’s available for sentences of under three years imprisonment, excepting cases involving serious violent offences or sexual offences. A court-ordered parole order means that the person is released on the date that the judge or magistrate orders release. The conditions are very broad, and the person, once released is then managed by Probation and Parole. Parole eligibility is different, so for sentences of beyond three years, and in some other circumstances, a court will make an eligibility date, and that’s a date that the court effectively recommends that a person be eligible or considered for parole. And in that case the Board makes a decision at that time whether the person should in fact be released on parole.

Debbie Kilroy:

So if a person’s sentenced to a period of time, and their sentence is finished, can the Parole Board continue to detain that person?

Julie Sharp:

If the sentence is completely expired?

Debbie Kilroy:

Yeah.

Julie Sharp:

No. So once a person’s term of imprisonment’s finished, the issue of parole has expired. It’s only in cases where the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act comes into play that somebody might be detained beyond their full time release date.

Debbie Kilroy:

And just to cover all aspects too, so a person gets sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which is longer than three years, so an eligibility date is set. Can the Parole Board keep someone in prison, detain them in prison after that eligibility date?

Julie Sharp:

Yes is the simple answer. So once an application’s made, and a person’s eligible for parole, the Board will look at a range of material provided to it again from various sources to determine whether release to parole is an acceptable risk. So the Parole Board’s highest priority is community safety, and that’s mandated by the ministerial guidelines. And so with that in mind the Parole Board will consider a whole range of factors, conduct in custody, courses completed, the stability of accommodation available when released, all of those kinds of things to determine whether that person presents an acceptable risk to the community.

Debbie Kilroy:

So I think you talked about it a little bit before, or identified it a bit before an issue around accommodation for example. So what are the biggest barriers to a person being granted parole, being successful in their parole application?

Julie Sharp:

Accommodation’s a really big issue, and Michael, Peter and I since coming on board in July last year have been surprised, and unpleasantly surprised, at the difficulty people have obtaining suitable accommodation. And sometimes very unfortunately that’s the only barrier to release. And so one of the things that as a new Board we’ve focused on is trying to unlock more accommodation options, and we’re continuing to work on that. Other barriers would include conduct in custody. One of things that we’re talking to people in custody, potential parole applicants about, is the way the Parole Board makes decisions, and that’s on an evidence-based model. And so as a very general example, if a person’s in custody for drug offending, or drug related offending, and they’re continuing to use drugs in custody, there’s every chance they’re not going to be considered a suitable candidate for parole. That’s not a blanket rule of course, and every case is different, but that would be a barrier, conduct in custody, accommodation,

Debbie Kilroy:

The accommodation’s the big one, for sure.

Julie Sharp:

It is a big one, yeah, it’s a real problem.

Debbie Kilroy:

Yeah, it’s tragic that we don’t have enough accommodation for people.

Julie Sharp:

It really is, yes.

Debbie Kilroy:

Because that actually keeps so many people in past their eligibility date, they’re not released.

Julie Sharp:

That’s right, yes.

Debbie Kilroy:

Okay. So what type of conditions would the Parole Board put on somebody within their order, their parole order, to be released.

Julie Sharp:

There’s standard conditions, which are legislated, and they include things that you would expect, for example you can’t commit an offence. There’s a standard now, a monitoring and curfew condition which will allow Probation and Parole to impose conditions to keep track of people, and that’s usual in the first little while after a person’s released to make sure people settle after release from custody. In terms of additional conditions, the new Parole Board did a lot of work very early on to try and streamline the many and varied conditions that were being placed on people’s parole orders, which resulted in pages and pages of conditions. So we’ve refined them into categories. So for somebody who has committed fraud offences for example because of a gambling problem, then there might be a condition around gambling. For people who have an alcohol problem that’s led to their offending, there will be conditions about alcohol and not attending licensed premises. So we really try and tailor those additional conditions to the reason behind the offending.

Debbie Kilroy:

Yep. So it’s more about looking at the individual person’s parole application and tailoring conditions that actually will ameliorate the risk to the community, in the context of who they are as a person, as a human being...

Julie Sharp:

Absolutely.

Debbie Kilroy:

…tailored to them, not just blanket conditions across the board.

Julie Sharp:

That’s exactly right. And as I’ve said, we’re using the video link more and more to talk to parole applicants. It’s primarily about community safety, but the reality is that if the parole applicant succeeds, well, everybody succeeds, and so the conditions are as much aimed at protection as at assisting the person to overcome the problems that saw them going to prison in the first place.

Debbie Kilroy:

Yep. And so one of those conditions could be, I think, because this is a fairly new condition that’s being used, and that’s the GPS tracking device. So how do they work?

Julie Sharp:

Yes. Controversially. People on parole don’t like them, because traditionally the GPS devices have been applied only to sex offenders. And so with the rolling out of GPS monitoring for the general population there’s been a lot of controversy about that, and part of the work that’s being done is to try and educate the public and people who are being released on parole that this is not just about sex offenders. It is used in cases where, and again, it’s a case-by-case basis, and it’s individually considered, where for example there have been issues relating to the offending with association with certain people, to keep an eye on where the person’s going, when there’s a curfew, in order to monitor the curfew, and it’s not forever, so it’s designed to be a tool to allow Probation and Parole to monitor a person in high risk times.

Debbie Kilroy:

And you’re right, there is a lot of stigma around GPS tracking devices, because they’ve only really ever been used, and publicised to the community as well, that those convicted of sex offences have the GPS monitoring device. So it will take a lot of education, not only with the community, but those people inside prison as well, because I’d imagine they’d be quite fearful that they’re going to be labelled as sex offenders.

Julie Sharp:

Absolutely. And we’ve certainly heard cases where people have said that they’d rather go back to prison than wear the bracelet, because of the stigma attached, and so there is certainly work to be done on educating people about the fact that this isn’t just about sex offenders.

Debbie Kilroy:

So when considering a parole application, how does the Board assess potential risk?

Julie Sharp:

In a range of ways, and again depending on the individual, there are cases that are far more simple than others. In more complex cases we will have access to a lot more material, and potentially risk assessment reports by a psychiatrist or a psychologist. So in cases where there is a level of complexity and a high level of potential risk to the community, despite us having information that a person’s done courses and behaved very well and all those kinds of things, we will sometimes commission expert opinion to tell us more about risk assessment from that expert point of view. In general cases there’s five people with a range of experience who will have read material provided by Corrective Services which detail past offending, conduct in custody, courses completed. We’ll have access to sentencing remarks, letters of support for example. It’s very helpful when we have letters from community organisations who are able to assist. All of that goes into the mix with all of our combined experience to make a determination about whether the support available, given historical matters and what’s changed while in custody, to make that determination.

Debbie Kilroy:

Does the Parole Board have scope to bring in an independent consultant or expert, whether it’s a psychiatrist or psychologist, or someone maybe with mental health expertise, or do you just have to rely on the one person that’s on the Board, the professional member?

Julie Sharp:

No. We commission reports independently from other experts. We very often commission a psychiatrists to prepare reports, particularly in cases where there’s been serious violent offending or sex offending, we’ll have an expert assess that person and provide a report.

Debbie Kilroy:

Okay. And so once a decision is made to release someone on parole into the community, what involvement then does the Parole Board have with that person? Or does the Parole Board have any more involvement?

Julie Sharp:

Well if all goes well we’ll have no involvement. If the wheels fall off then the Parole Board might receive a request from Probation and Parole to suspend a person’s parole. And in that case the initial decision’s made by what’s called in the legislation a prescribed board member who is one of the professional board members, and within two business days then the full Board sits to either confirm or otherwise that decision to suspend. So that’s, I suppose, the most formal way the Parole Board would be involved after release. There have been cases where things have started to go wobbly, if you like, and Probation and Parole have worked with us, and we’ve had video links to try and work out what’s going on before it gets to that suspension point. But yes, we do have some ongoing involvement when things go wrong.

Debbie Kilroy:

And so can you just go through the process if someone has breached their parole conditions, so what actually happens?

Julie Sharp:

So the process as far as the Parole Board’s concerned is that we will receive what’s called an advice to the Parole Board, which details the breaches or the concerns relating to risk. So the suspension might be requested on the basis of failures to comply, so a person failed to report, failed to provide a sample for testing for example.

Debbie Kilroy:

So like a urine test, to tell the Board or tell Probation and Parole that they’ve been maybe using drugs and/or alcohol if that’s the issue.

Julie Sharp:

That’s right, yes. Or if there’s perceived to be an unacceptable risk of further offending. So that might be based on the fact that somebody’s been charged with offences, or that they’ve been using drugs, or a range of other reasons. The professional board member will receive that report and make an assessment of the request, and make the decision then whether to suspend or otherwise. It’s not a rubber stamp, there are a number of occasions where the professional board member has declined to suspend on the basis of the advice. But if they do decide to suspend, then as I said the matter will come before a full board to discuss that decision. And if it’s decided by the full Board to confirm the decision, then usually at that point there’s discussion about “Well, where to from here?”

And so in a case where there’s obvious issues relating to mental health or homelessness, then the Board will request an accommodation risk assessment that some work be done on getting the person accommodation. If there’s mental health problems, then we’ll refer that person to prison mental health, and provide a copy of the advice so that the wheels are in motion then to work towards addressing whatever issue resulted in the person going back into custody.

Debbie Kilroy:

You talked before about the whole process of assessing a parole application, and I was just thinking when you were talking there, and I was wondering about – because there’s people in prison that have committed offences where there’s actual victims, like other human beings, and I’m not talking about the local Woollies or Coles or the train station or whatever, I’m talking about actual people that have been harmed. So do victims have - can they have input in regards to parole decisions?

Julie Sharp:

Yes. There is a Victims Register where people who are the victims of crime can provide submissions to the Parole Board which are taken into consideration as part of the application process.

Debbie Kilroy:

With all the other material before the Board?

Julie Sharp:

That’s right, yep. And for example a victim might tell us that they have an objection to a person living in a particular location and things like that, and those things are taken very seriously by the Parole Board with its mandate as I said to protect the community. So yes, victims’ submissions are taken on board.

Debbie Kilroy:

So when someone has finished their parole, and it comes to an end, so how does the sentencing loop close off?

Julie Sharp:

Well, that is the end of the sentencing loop. Once a person’s sentenced to three years imprisonment, they’re released on parole after the 12 month mark, everything goes well, and the three years is up, well, that’s the end of the sentencing process. For some people who have ongoing issues and struggles, that sentencing loop can continue for some time, so if somebody’s released on parole, commits further offences, they might then be sentenced to another term of imprisonment which will result in a new parole eligibility date, and so it goes. But the Parole Board then will become involved at every time there’s a new eligibility date to reconsider.

Debbie Kilroy:

But if they’ve complied with their parole conditions, their order, and the date ends of the actual sentence that was handed down in a court of law…

Julie Sharp:

That’s the end.

Debbie Kilroy:

…they are no longer monitored by the Parole Board or Probation and Parole, for that matter.

Julie Sharp:

That’s right, that’s the end of it. Having said that the sentencing loop closes at the end of a person’s period of parole, there’s an important issue related to that, and that is whether community safety will benefit from a person having a period of supervision. The purpose of parole, an important purpose of parole, is to reintegrate people from prison into the community. And there are benefits in having a person supervised for a period in the community before their sentence ends. As the now Justice Sofronoff observed in the Queensland Parole System Review, all prisoners, aside from those who are serving terms of life imprisonment will one day be released regardless. And so the issue is whether it’s better in terms of community safety to release somebody at their full time release date with no supervision, potentially no home to go to, no family support, or is it better to release somebody at their eligibility date or soon after, as all of the appropriate protections are in place, so that that person can have the benefit of supervision, some assistance with drug addiction for example, somebody looking out for them, approved accommodation, those kinds of things to set them up, so that when the sentence is at an end, they’ve had a period of stability and assistance before the end of the loop.

Debbie Kilroy:

I hope you enjoyed this edition of Sentencing Matters, and thanks Julie for talking to us today, it’s been great. For those of you who would like to find out some more information on sentencing issues in Queensland, you can head to our website, sentencingcouncil.qld.gov.au.

Julie Sharp:

Thanks Debbie.

Debbie Kilroy:

Thank you.