case management cont.assets.justice.vic.gov.au/.../apb_annual_report11-2012whole_part2.pdfeach case...

Review of DecisionsThe Board aims to ensure that itsproceedings are conducted properlyand fairly for all parties involved. Inmaking decisions to grant, deny, deferor cancel parole, the Board considerseach case on its merits, while usingflexible guidelines developed overmany years to streamline the decision-making process.

Once the Board makes its decision, an offender (prisoner, parolee or thosesubject to a supervision order) canrequest a review at any time after the decision is made. A request for areview of a decision can be initiated if:

there is new information and/or a change in circumstances or

the offender believes the decisionwas wrong.

A review may be initiated in writing by the offender or by a person onbehalf of the offender. The Board willreview decisions in order to ensure thatthe law and operating principles arerespected and that the Board’sdecisions are based upon relevant andreliable information. The three memberdivision of the Board which reviews thedecision may, based on the materialand information before them, confirmor change the decision of the originaldecision-makers.

Victims of CrimeThe Board fully appreciates thedifficulties faced by victims of crimeand their families who are exposed tothe criminal justice system. A VictimsRegister commenced on 30 August2004 and is managed by the VictimsSupport Agency of the Department ofJustice. The Victims Registrarmaintains contact with victims of crimewho have asked to receive informationabout an adult prisoner who has beenconvicted of committing a violent crimeagainst them. The aim of the Registeris to provide victims of violent crimewith timely, relevant and accurateinformation about offenders during theirperiod of imprisonment. Individualsincluded on the Register have a right to send a written submission to theBoard, when the prisoner for whomthey are registered is being consideredfor parole. During the financial year, 95 submissions were provided for theBoard’s consideration (69 in 2010-11).

The Board regularly imposes specialconditions on parole orders which aredesigned to protect victims fromcontact with offenders. The VictimsRegistrar will provide information aboutthe release of an offender on parole tovictims who are on the Register,including any special conditions thatthe Board has imposed that arerelevant to the victim.

29Adult Parole Board of Victoria 2011-2012 Annual Report

Parole Releases, Denials and Cancellations – 2007-08 to 2011-12Releases Denials Cancellations

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007-12 -11 -10 -09 -08 -12 -11 -10 -09 -08 -12 -11 -10 -09 -08

Male 1,677 1,623 1,537 1,534 1,435 277 182 177 181 169 602 491 494 458 392

Female 166 169 132 122 166 19 19 17 9 17 57 39 45 31 43

Total 1,843 1,792 1,669 1,656 1,601 296 201 194 190 186 659 530 539 489 435

The Board regularly imposes thespecial condition ‘that you undergoassessment and treatment for alcoholor drug addiction or submit to medical,psychological or psychiatricassessment and treatment as directed’as a condition of the parole order. Thisspecial condition provides supervisingCommunity Corrections Officers withthe authority to direct offenders toprograms designed to address alcohol,drug and gambling addictions, and toarrange psychiatric and psychologicaltreatment. In most cases, the Boardidentifies the particular needs of theoffender and directs the CommunityCorrections Officers to arrange theappropriate treatment and programs.From time to time during thesupervising period, the offender mayrequire counselling for health problemsand other issues, and this conditionprovides the Community CorrectionsOfficers with the flexibility to arrangetreatment without having to refer backto the Board.

Special Conditions of ParoleWhere appropriate, the Board imposesspecial conditions on parole orders toaddress accommodation, lifestyle andtreatment issues, including:

attendance for assessment andtreatment for alcohol or drugaddiction, or submitting to medical,psychological or psychiatricassessment and treatment

testing for alcohol or drug use

attendance for personaldevelopment programs (often in conjunction with anger management programs)

residence as directed by the Board

attendance for treatment at theCommunity Forensic Mental HealthCentre

no contact, directly or indirectly,with the victim or certain potentialvictims (an important protection for vulnerable persons in somesituations)

no unsupervised contact withchildren

participation in the sex offendermaintenance program

avoidance of certain geographicalareas

abstinence from alcohol

assessment by, and participationin, drug programs as directed bysupervising Community CorrectionsOfficers, and

participation in drug programs asdirected by supervising CommunityCorrections Officers in consultationwith the Community OffendersAdvice and Treatment Service(COATS).

Monitoring the Supervision of Offenders on ParoleThe Board interviews offenders at itsoffice and at Community CorrectionalServices offices in regional Victoria sothat it can monitor their progress whileon parole. In addition, the Boardconsults with Community CorrectionsOfficers about the individualmanagement of specific offenders and the broader issues affecting thesupervision of offenders on parole.This process gives CommunityCorrections Officers, particularly thosenew to Community CorrectionalServices, the opportunity to gain aclear understanding of the Board’srequirements and to discuss difficultissues surrounding the supervision of offenders.

28 Adult Parole Board of Victoria 2011-2012 Annual Report

Case Management cont.

Special Conditions Imposed on Parole Orders 2011-12

Assessment, Treatment and Testing 63%

Restricted Residential and/or No Contact with Victims 26%

Other 11%

Parole Orders Completed Successfully and Cancelled 2007-08 to 2011-12

2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08

Completed Successfully * 1,042 1,132 1,064 1,094 1,010

Cancelled 659 530 539 489 435

* Includes a count of the number of parole orders completed during each financialyear. The figures include both orders made prior to and during the reporting yearthat were successfully completed between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2012.

Of the 727 cases involving breachesnot resulting in cancellation:

169 offenders (23%) were warnedby the Board, compared with 121(23%) in 2010-11

541 offenders (75%) were warnedby the Regional Manager or theCentre Manager of the CommunityCorrectional Centre, compared with392 (75%) in 2010-11

8 offenders (1%) were warned by letter, compared with 7 (1%) in 2010-11

9 cases (1%) involved no furtheraction being taken by the Board,compared with 9 (1%) in 2010-11.

Breaches Not Resulting in Cancellation During 2011-12, the Board considered727 cases involving breaches of theconditions of a parole order which,given all the circumstances, should notbe cancelled. This result represents a37.4% increase when compared withthe 529 cases in 2010-11.

Often, a minor breach of parole doesnot justify returning an offender tocustody. In such cases, the Board:

warns the offender formally

requests the CommunityCorrectional Services RegionalManager or the Centre Manager to warn the offender, or

issues a warning by letter.In most cases, such warnings aresufficient to remind offenders abouttheir parole obligations andresponsibilities and, usually, offendersthen go on to complete their paroleorders successfully.

Cancellation of Parole 2007-08 to 2011-12Period After Release By Condition By Conviction Total Proportion (%)

and Sentence

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007-12 -11 -10 -09 -08 -12 -11 -10 -09 -08 -12 -11 -10 -09 -08 -12 -11 -10 -09 -08

Release to <3 months 233 200 171 163 152 16 10 20 16 11 249 210 191 179 163 38 40 35 37 38

3 to <6 months 150 111 100 89 70 17 13 28 19 23 167 124 128 108 93 25 23 24 22 21

6 to <12 months 99 71 74 69 55 39 34 46 37 29 138 105 120 106 84 21 20 22 21 19

12 months or more 70 47 43 36 47 35 44 57 60 48 105 91 100 96 95 16 17 19 20 22

Total 552 429 388 357 324 107 101 151 132 111 659 530 539 489 435 100 100 100 100 100

Breaches Not Resulting in Cancellation – 2007-08 to 2011-122011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08

Warned by the Board 169 121 126 146 148

Warned by Community Correctional Services Staff 541 392 297 310 278

Warned by Letter 8 7 20 12 24

No Action Taken by the Board 9 9 7 16 2

Total 727 529 450 484 452


Parole Orders CompletedSuccessfullyDuring 2011-12, 1,042 offenderscompleted parole orders successfully,compared with 1,132 completed paroleorders in 2010-11. This result includedoffenders who were released on paroleprior to the current reporting year butwho completed their parole periodduring the reporting year.

Breach of Parole Orders If an offender fails to comply with anyof the conditions of the parole order,including conviction and sentence forfurther offences while the order iscurrent, they are then in breach ofparole and the Board may cancel theorder. If a parole order has expired buta court imposes a sentence of morethan three months imprisonment for anoffence or offences committed duringthe parole period, the Board still hasjurisdiction to cancel parole.

If a breach occurs, the Board considersthe following actions:

note the breach but take no furtheraction

issue a warning by way of:– the individual’s attendance

in person before the Board

– a warning given by theRegional Manager of thesupervising CCS location, or

– a letter from the Board

add conditions, or

cancel the order.During 2011-12, offenders breached1,386 parole orders, compared with1,059 parole orders in 2010-11. Theseresults include parole orders made bythe Board in previous financial years.

Of the 1,386 parole orders breached,the Board cancelled 659 orders,representing 47.5% of all ordersbreached. The 2011-12 cancellationrate is a decrease compared with the2010-11 period when 50% of the 1,059parole orders breached by offendersresulted in cancellation of parole.

The Board considered the remainingbreaches to be insufficient in severityto warrant returning the offender toprison. Usually, offenders in thiscategory breached their parole by wayof conditions, such as failure to attendone or more supervised appointments.

Breaches Resulting in Cancellation The Board considers parole breaches to be a serious matter and often dealswith such breaches by cancellingparole orders. Consideration ofcancellation requires a re-considerationof the issues addressed when grantingthe parole order, in the light of theoffender’s subsequent conduct onparole and other circumstances arisingsince the offender’s release on parole.This consideration also occurs in thecontext that the offender is continuingto serve a single sentence ofimprisonment notwithstandingconditional release on parole.

The paramount consideration remainscommunity safety. Sometimes thisrequires that decisions are madeurgently, based on limited information.

Factors relevant when consideringwhether to grant parole remainpotentially relevant when consideringcancellation. In addition the Boardconsiders:

time spent on parole

time left before parole expires

compliance with conditions (and, inthe case of special conditions, thereason why those conditions wereimposed)

impact of the breach behaviour on the community

whether there has previously beena warning by the CommunityCorrectional Services CentreManager

whether there has previously beena warning by the Board

whether the position might beappropriately dealt with by such awarning, or by the amendment of

or imposition of conditions, or by some other step short of cancellation, and

the need to maintain the integrityand credibility of the parole system.

When the Board cancels a parole order,it issues a warrant for the arrest of theoffender who is then returned to prisoncustody where they are liable to servethe unexpired portion of their originalsentence. Offenders whose parole is cancelled will be considered for re-parole, applying the sameconsiderations as are set out in relationto the granting of parole, in the light ofthe circumstances of the cancellationand the sentence or sentences then tobe served.

The number of cancellations increasedby 24.3% from 530 in 2010-11 to 659in 2011-12. Of the 659 parole orderscancelled, 552 (84%) resulted from thefailure of the offender to comply withthe conditions of parole, comparedwith 429 (81%) in 2010-11. A total of 107 parole cancellations (16%)resulted from a further conviction and sentence being imposed on theoffender, compared with 101 (19% in 2010-11).

During 2011-12, the reasons forcancelled parole orders includedcontinued drug abuse by the offender,failure to attend for supervisionappointments, failure to participate in programs as specified in the order,and convictions for further offences.

Most parole orders that were cancelleddue to the offender failing to complywith the conditions of parole involvedcontinued substance abuse and/orfailure to attend supervisionappointments and/or programs. Themajority of such breaches occurred inthe first six months of parole, a periodin which many offenders experiencedifficulty in adjusting to the transitionfrom prison to the community.


People on Parole

Victoria Police ROPE (from l to r): Detective Senior ConstableCatherine Liddy and Detective Senior Constable Brendan Finn

Youth TransfersThe following information details youthtransfers as defined under s467, 471and 475 of the Children, Youth andFamilies Act 2005.

Transfers from Prison to a Youth Justice CentreS471 of the Children, Youth andFamilies Act 2005 provides:

If the Adult Parole Board considers itappropriate, in the interests of a personunder the age of 21 years imprisoned ina prison, to transfer that person to ayouth justice centre, the Adult ParoleBoard may, if satisfied, after consideringa report from the Secretary to theDepartment of Human Services;

(i) that person is suitable for detentionin a youth justice centre;

and

(ii) a place is available in a youthjustice centre — direct that personbe transferred to a youth justicecentre.

During 2011-12, two persons weretransferred from prison to a youthjustice centre, pursuant to this section,the same number as in 2010-11.

Transfers from a Youth JusticeCentre to a PrisonS467 of the Children, Youth and FamiliesAct 2005 provides:

The Youth Parole Board may, on theapplication of the Secretary to theDepartment of Human Services, direct a person aged 16 years or moresentenced as a child by the Children'sCourt or any other court to be detainedin a youth justice centre be transferred to a prison to serve the unexpired portionof the period of his or her detention asimprisonment.

When a person transfers to prison, he orshe becomes subject to the jurisdictionof the Board as if the period of detentionserved by that person, prior to thetransfer, had been a minimum term.

S475 of the Children, Youth andFamilies Act 2005 provides that if a person:

(a) has been sentenced to detention in a youth justice centre; and

(b) before the end of that sentence is sentenced to a term ofimprisonment with respect to anyoffence the Youth Parole Board maydirect that the person serve theunexpired portion of the period ofdetention as imprisonment in aprison and thereafter the person is subject to the jurisdiction of theAdult Parole Board as if the periodof detention served by him or herbefore that sentence ofimprisonment or his or her release

on parole by the Youth Parole Boardhad been a non-parole period.

During 2011-12, 12 persons weretransferred from a youth justice centreto a prison, compared with 16 in 2010-11.

Interstate TransfersThe Parole Orders (Transfer) Act 1983,as amended, provides the legislativebasis for the transfer of parole ordersbetween jurisdictions.

During 2011-12, the Registrar ofTransferred Parole Orders advised theBoard of the transfer from Victoria of18 parole orders interstate (19 in 2010-11) as shown in the following table.


Supervising People on Parole Community Corrections Officersemployed by Community CorrectionalServices, a Branch of CorrectionsVictoria, supervise offenders releasedon parole. These officers areaccountable to the Board pursuant to s73 of the Corrections Act 1986.

Community Corrections Officersprovide court advice and superviseindividuals released on a number ofdifferent non-custodial, communitybased orders. Upon release fromcustody, a parolee must report withintwo working days to the CommunityCorrectional Services Centre nearest to their home or to the offender’s mostconvenient location.

Release of Drug AbusingOffenders Under the Victorian Prison DrugStrategy, prison managers are requiredto perform random urine analyses ofprisoners to determine their IdentifiedDrug User (IDU) status. Offenders guiltyof illicit drug use are tested morefrequently and are subject to anescalating range of prison sanctions.

The Board considers drug use byoffenders very seriously. It advisesoffenders that they must remain drugfree for a designated period in order tobe considered suitable for release onparole. The Board recognises thatoffenders who use drugs while incustody will usually continue to usedrugs after they are released and,therefore, are likely to re-offend. Onnumerous occasions, the Board hasrevoked parole orders for offenderswho have continued to use drugs inprison prior to their release on parole.

The Board supports those offenderswho show initiative in addressing theirdrug use issues by participating in drugtreatment programs.

Monitoring OffendersConvicted of Serious OffencesThe Board pays particularly closeattention to offenders who have beenconvicted of serious offences, both

during their period of imprisonment andduring any period of parole. Generally,the Board reviews such offenders fromthe commencement of their sentenceand at regular intervals thereafter.

These reviews are conducted morefrequently as the offender’s paroleeligibility date draws nearer. Inaddition, the Board conducts personalinterviews with these offenders on aregular basis. Through this process,the Board can observe the progress of offenders while they are in custody.This also enables the Board toencourage participation in programsthat will assist them to reintegrate into the community.

Prior to a prisoner’s earliest eligibilitydate for parole, the Board may, inappropriate cases, fix a tentative datefor release on parole. This date istentative only and may later berevoked. This procedure enables long-term offenders who, by reason of theirgood behaviour, have achieved aminimum security rating in prison tomake application for a rehabilitationand transition permit as provided for bysection 57 of the Corrections Act 1986.

When an early decision to release anoffender is made, the Board continuesto monitor the progress and behaviourof the offender. If an offender fails toact in an appropriate manner within theprison system, the Board may revokethe order or defer release.

The Board actively supervises thoseoffenders convicted of serious offenceswho have been released on parole.Upon release, the Board monitorsthese individuals by obtaining progressreports from the supervisingCommunity Corrections Officer andrequiring such offenders to attendinterviews every three months duringthe first year of their parole supervisionperiod. If the parolee responds well to parole supervision, the intervalsbetween these interviews may beextended as the supervision periodprogresses. Generally, the Boardreceives progress reports until theparole period expires.

Offenders Detained under s93Aof the Sentencing Act 1991In cases involving offenders with amental illness detained under s93A of the Sentencing Act 1991, thesentencing court may require suchindividuals to serve their sentences inan approved mental health institution.Such facilities include the ThomasEmbling Hospital, which is managed by the Victorian Institute of ForensicMental Health, known as Forensicare.

Detainees become eligible for paroleonly when the Mental Health ReviewBoard or the Chief Psychiatristdischarges them.

During 2011-12, the Board visited theThomas Embling Hospital to monitor theprogress of detainees. In addition, a member of the Board’s staffcommunicated on a regular basis withtreating doctors and staff at thehospital. This procedure ensured thathospital staff brought any changes inthe condition of detainees to theBoard’s attention between visits to thehospital. Consequently, the Board wasable to consider cases and make urgentand appropriate decisions without the need to attend the hospital.

Additionally, the Board’s proceduresensured that such individuals could be released on parole without beingreturned to prison. This procedurebenefited detainees with significantmental health problems by assistingtheir reintegration into the community.The Board worked with representativesof Thomas Embling Hospital andCommunity Correctional ServicesCentres to develop appropriate releaseplans which provided a high level ofsupport for detainees once they werereleased on parole.

In conjunction with the management of Thomas Embling Hospital, the Boardcontinued to maintain a register ofdetainees. Although the Board grantedparole for detainees only after they weredischarged by the Mental Health ReviewBoard or Chief Psychiatrist, the Boardmonitored the progress of detaineesduring their treatment periods.


People on Parole cont.

Parole Orders Transferred from Victoria – 2007-08 to 2011-12

Jurisdiction 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08

New South Wales 5 8 9 10 8

South Australia 1 1 3 4 1

Western Australia 1 4 1 3 2

Queensland 9 3 8 10 5

Northern Territory - - 2 - -

Tasmania 2 3 1 - 3

Australian Capital Territory - - 3 - -

Total 18 19 27 27 19

The Registrar of Transferred Parole Orders also advised the Board of the transfer to Victoria of 21 parole orders from interstate (48 in 2010-11) as shown in thefollowing table.

Parole Orders Transferred to Victoria – 2007-08 to 2011-12

Jurisdiction 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08

New South Wales 14 27 12 14 15

South Australia - 3 5 3 2

Western Australia 1 3 4 4 1

Queensland 4 14 6 8 4

Northern Territory - 1 - - -

Tasmania 2 1 1 - 2

Australian Capital Territory - - 1 1 1

Total 21 49 29 30 25

Detention and Supervision Order Division

35

Legislative Changes to Home DetentionA change of government at the stateelection in November 2010 broughtwith it a commitment to abolish homedetention.

The Sentencing Legislation Amendment(Abolition of Home Detention) Bill 2011was introduced to Parliament on 15 June 2011. This Bill amended theSentencing Act 1991 and theCorrections Act 1986 to remove homedetention from the Victorian StatuteBook at the front end through thecourts and at the back end through the Board.

The Bill received Royal Assent on 22 September 2011. On 21 December2011 the Government announced thatthe Sentencing Legislation Amendment(Abolition of Home Detention) Act 2011would come into effect on 16 January2012.

As a result of the abolition of homedetention, statistics have beencompiled for the period 1 July 2011 to 16 January 2012 only.

Applications ReceivedBetween 1 July 2011 and 16 January2012, the Board received a total of 146applications from offenders wishing toparticipate in the program, comparedwith 348 applications in 2010-11.

Applications Deemed IneligibleAfter a comprehensive assessment of received applications, the Boarddeemed 102 applicants (comparedwith 192 in 2010-11) ineligible toparticipate in the program for a numberof reasons, including:

prison security rating

unsuitable accommodation

nature of past offence

insufficient time to undertake the program

Applications Sent for AssessmentBetween 1 July 2011 and 16 January2012, the Board requested CommunityCorrectional Services to undertake anassessment of 44 offenders. Of those44 offenders, 13 were assessed asunsuitable to participate in the programand 10 were assessed as suitable.Due to the abolition of the program, 21 outstanding assessments were not required to be completed byCommunity Correctional Services.

Assessment of ApplicationsThirteen applicants were assessed asunsuitable for the program between 1 July 2011 and 16 January 2012because of:

concerns regarding the suitabilityof accommodation

nature of offences

outstanding matters.The Board was able to exercise itspower to refuse home detention incases where there had been a positiverecommendation from CommunityCorrectional Services. The Board madesuch decisions on the basis that theoffender may present an unacceptablerisk to the community.

Home Detention Orders MadeAfter careful consideration, the Boardmade 53 home detention ordersbetween 1 July 2011 and 16 January2012 (78 in 2010-11). Prior to a homedetention order being made, the Boardwould endeavour to interview theoffender by video conference or inperson to explain the requirements of the program.

The courts made eight home detentionorders during 2011-12 (compared with14 in 2010-11).

Order StatusDuring 2011-12, 62 offenderssuccessfully completed their homedetention order (81 in 2010-11).

The Board did not revoke any ordersduring 2011-12, compared with six in2010-11. As at 30 June 2012, twooffenders, both on front end orders,were participating in the program(compared with 25 as at 30 June 2011).


Home Detention Program

Statistical Summary

Introduction

Chairperson’s Report

Manager’s Report

Scope of the Division’s Jurisdiction

Custody, Eligibility and Parole Management

Post-Sentence Order Management

Statistical Profile

Adult Parole Board of Victoria 2011-2012 Annual Report

300

Applications Received

400

500

200

100

0

Applications Received

Applications IneligibleApplications Sent for Assessment

2009

-10

409

267

142

2011

-12

146

102

44

2010

-11

348

192

153

2007

-08

292

129

82

2008

-09

311

160

151

120

Currently on HDOs

80

40

0

100

60

20

Order Status

HDOs CompletedHDOs Revoked

2009

-10

973

2011

-12

2 60

2010

-11

816

2008

-09

4110

2007

-08

494

Board Ordered HDOs

80

40

0

100

60

20

Orders Made

Court Ordered HDOs

2009

-10

2011

-12

2010

-11

2008

-09

8318

2007

-08

6321

538

7814

8710

25

37

32

31

The primary purpose of the Division is to oversee post-sentence orders for serious sex offenders made pursuantto the legislation under which it is established – theSSO(DS)A. In 2009, the decision was made tobroaden the Division’s legislated mandate toinclude, acting as the Board, custody, eligibilityand parole matters for all other sex offendersin the Victorian adult criminal justice system.In being responsible for the administrationof all sex offender orders, the Division’srole ultimately benefits the communityas it provides comprehensivecoordination, administration andmonitoring capacity. The offenders,who are subject to these orders andwhose risk, rehabilitation and liberty require specialconsideration, also benefit from the specialist knowledgeand experience of the Division. The Division is responsible for custody, eligibility and parolemanagement, transitionalmanagement and post-sentence management. TheDivision’s role and experiencehas allowed it to develop insightinto the workings of the sexoffender management system inVictoria.

Chairperson’s Report


Statistical Summary

Cases considered by the Division2,936

New post-sentence orders made by the courts50

Orders revoked by the court at review3

Post-sentence orders under the jurisdiction of the Division at 30 June 201285

Offenders who breached conditions on their orders12

Average length in years of new ordersmade5

The Division officially met121

Percentage increase in the number of cases considered33

Emergency powers used1

The Division directed offenders to reside at Corella Place8

Offenders directed to be subject toelectronic monitoring by the Division17

Supervision orders completed1

Victim submissions received andconsidered by the Division regardingsupervision orders58

IntroductionThe Division is responsible for thesupervision of serious sex offenderssubject to post-sentence supervisionand detention orders and extendedsupervision orders. The Serious SexOffenders (Detention and Supervision)Act 2009 (SSO(DS)A) provides for thepost-sentence supervision anddetention of high-risk sex offenders.The SSODSA is gradually repealingorders made under the Serious SexOffenders Monitoring Act (2005)SSOMA. The Division is alsoresponsible for overseeing matters forsex offenders in custody and on parole.

Established by the SSO(D)SA, theDivision has the following functionsconferred upon it in respect to its post-sentence mandate:

monitor compliance with andadminister the conditions of asupervision order

give directions and instructions toan offender in accordance with anyauthorisation given to the AdultParole Board under a supervisionorder

review and monitor the progress of offenders on detention andsupervision orders, and interimdetention and supervision orders

inquire into breaches of supervisionorders, and recommend actions tothe Secretary to the Department ofJustice

make decisions to ensure thecarrying into effect of theconditions of supervision orders

make recommendations to theSecretary in relation to applying toa court to review the conditions ofsupervision orders, and

any other function conferred on theAdult Parole Board by or under theAct.

The Division oversees CorrectionsVictoria’s management of sexoffenders on supervision orders androutinely engages with offenders inorder to:

maintain a safe and securecommunity

motivate sex offenders on orders to engage in and continue withprograms and services

engage offenders in a way thatacknowledges their stage ofchange and motivates them tomove through stages of change

ensure, as far as the Division isable, that restrictions placed onsupervision orders areproportionate to the offender’s riskand appropriately take account ofan offender’s human rights

review offenders subject todetention orders in accordancewith their status as an ‘unconvictedprisoner’, and

identify and monitor the risks andneeds of sex offenders.


In light of the Division’s experience in carrying out its roleover a number of years, it is timely to review its operation

and issues that have arisen and need to be considered.

offender’s legal status is unresolved, the sentence may be quashed or altered. It is the Division’s experience thatunresolved appeals in a significant number of casesconsiderably delay the undertaking of the SOP andconsequently result in offenders well exceeding theireligibility date before they can be considered for parolethrough no fault of their own. Delay in the determination of appeals affects the administration of the parole systemgenerally and the Division is pleased to note the recentinitiatives taken to speed up the appeal process. It isrecognised that appeals must take time to resolve butlengthy delays such as 18 months or two years or more havea serious effect on the administration of the parole system,particularly for sex offenders.

The administrative burden that treatment delays create for the Division’s secretariat is considerable. The impact on the children, partners and parents of these offenders ischallenging to manage and inquiries from these members of the community account for the majority of inquiries to theDivision. It also becomes challenging for the Division tomanage offenders’ motivation to participate in treatmentonce they have been detained beyond their eligibility date for the sole reason that a place in a treatment program has yet to be offered. Best practice literature is clear thatmaintaining an offender’s responsivity is key to the efficacyof treatment particularly for sex offenders.

The Division is aware of the issues faced by the SOP that areaffecting the timely delivery of its service. It is pleasing tonote that initiatives are being taken by the CorrectionsVictoria to improve the timely delivery of programs for sexoffenders. This involves making more programs available and including other locations. The Division is committed toworking with Corrections Victoria in the implementation ofthe plan it has established to overcome these challenges in the 2012-13 reporting period. It is in the community’sinterests that this occur.

Transitional ManagementWith respect to the management of offenders on parole and for whom an application for a supervision order is inprogress, the Division appreciates the additional sources ofinformation that it receives during the Secretary’s applicationfor a post-sentence order. Essentially, however, the Divisionmust continue to manage the parolee as such and not inaccordance with post-sentence legislation. This is especiallyrelevant to housing.

Finding suitable housing for sex offenders in the communityis a considerable challenge. The Division expects, however,that efforts to support the search for suitable housingthrough community agencies, independently or through theCorrections Victoria Housing Project be made for paroleeswho are likely to transition to the post-sentence regime.

Post-Sentence ManagementThe Board commenced the administration of post-sentenceorders under the Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005and, over the last seven years, the Board has acquiredconsiderable experience through the Division in the area ofsex offender management. As the Division has shaped itspractices, so too have the areas responsible for theoperational management of offenders subject to theseorders. Sex offender management continues to be an areaof primary concern for both Government and the community.

Risk ManagementRisk assessment and risk management are critical in theadministration of supervision orders. An offender is placed on an order because the offender is judged to be anunacceptable risk of committing a sexual offence. Conditionsare imposed to manage the risk even though they affect the offender’s liberty. The legislation is clear, in that theimposition of restrictions must be related to sexualreoffending and that offenders subject to post-sentenceorders are members of the community. Risk must beapproached on an individual basis rather than a genericbasis. There can be a tendency with sex offenders to dealwith them as a generic group rather than individually as alloffenders are different with different risk factors. In carryingout its role the Division focuses on the risk factors present inthe particular case under consideration and how they areaffected by any action that the Division might take. In theend what is involved is managing the risk posed by thatparticular offender, not sex offenders in general.

In this reporting period, despite the growth in post-sentencepopulation, the Division only directed that offenders reside atCorella Place on eight occasions. The Division endeavours asmuch as it can to ensure that Corella Place is an alternativeaccommodation for those offenders who cannot be housedin the broader community. However, unfortunately the realityis that there will be an increasing number of offenders whowill not be able to be managed safely in the community andalready there are indications of this occurring. This hassignificant resource and management implications as thereare signs that some offenders are becoming increasinglydifficult to manage in Corella Place despite the commendableand dedicated efforts of the staff who work in a very difficultand challenging environment.

The Division endeavours to ensure that, where appropriateand consistent with the risk and the conditions set by thecourt, offenders are provided, through the directions they are given, with an opportunity to demonstrate that certainongoing restrictions are not necessary for communityprotection and that they are becoming more skilled inmanaging their own risk. This is consistent with the decisionof Justice Bongiorno in the Supreme Court on 22 October 2009.


Since its establishment, the Division has through itsmembers developed and followed a consistent interpretationand application of legislation, particularly the SSO(DS)A. TheDivision has developed and followed a responsive approachto overseeing orders. In the early stages of its establishmentthe Division sought to gauge the sentencing courts’ approachto the application of the legislation. The Division believes thecourts have confidence in the Division’s administration oftheir orders. In light of the Division’s experience in carryingout its role over a number of years, it is timely to review itsoperation and issues that have arisen and need to beconsidered. They concern the management of sex offenderswhile in prison, on parole and being supervised on asupervision order.

Custody, Eligibility and Parole ManagementWhere it acts as the Board, the Division monitors theprogress of sex offenders in custody and communicates withthem in order to make appropriate decisions regarding theirparole when they become eligible under the sentence theyare serving. This includes taking account of any sentencingremarks of the sentencing judge including those relating tothe non-parole period. The non-parole period the courtdetermines must be served before the offender is eligible to be released under the supervision of parole. The fixing ofa non-parole period provides an opportunity for supervisedrelease and a reintegration regime for offenders to enhancecommunity safety and offender rehabilitation. The non-paroleperiod is an important element of the sentence structure,which the Division must consider, although it is not obliged togrant parole when that period has been served. Whether itdoes then or later depends on whether it is appropriate to doso in all the circumstances including the protection of thecommunity.

Programs It is generally the Division’s position that sex offenders whoare assessed as suitable for participation in a prison SexOffender Program (SOP) and will be offered such a program,do so before being considered eligible for parole. Thisposition is taken in the interests of community safety. Theassessment is carried out by SOP clinicians utilising ananalysis tool (Static 99). Sometimes the assessmentincludes a face-to-face interview with the offender but isusually via file review. An offender assessed as moderate tolow risk or higher will usually be recommended for the SOP.Although regarded as suitable, an offender may not beoffered the program because it cannot be completed beforethe expiry of their sentence as distinct from when they areeligible for parole. They may still be offered the SOP eventhough it cannot be completed before the expiry of the non-parole period. This means the offender will go past theireligibility date and this can be a cause of anxiety andfrustration for offenders. The SOP is in modular form andgenerally takes about six months to complete and until

recently has only been delivered at the MarngoneetCorrectional Centre.

Since 2008, the demand for prison based SOP treatment hasexceeded the capacity of the Corrections Victoria to provideit. This appears to be a result of the number of prison bedsallocated for treatment and the length of the sentences ofoffenders. Significantly, in this reporting period, only 33% ofoffenders assessed as suitable for participation inCorrections Victoria’s SOP completed treatment prior to thecompletion of their non-parole period. Some did not or willnot complete treatment until more than 12 months after theireligibility date for parole, despite their preparedness toundertake the program as soon as it was available. There aresome who refuse to undertake the program, which results inthem not being considered for parole until they do so. Thishas flow on effects and compounds the problem for thosewho are willing to address their offending behaviour. It should be noted however that 43.3% more prisoners have participated in treatment this year than last year and the demand for treatment continues to increase.

This delay has been a matter of concern to the Division in the administration of the parole system. It has meant thatoffenders have remained in prison longer than they wouldhave if the SOP had been available earlier so they couldcomplete it before the expiry of their non parole period andthus be able to be considered for parole at that time. In thissense, the non-parole period set by the court is underminedas it is not the function of the Division to alter the eligibilitydate set by the Court. It is a matter of concern that prisonerscannot be considered for parole when eligible because theyhave been unable to undertake the SOP, which they werealways willing to undertake and where otherwise it would beappropriate to grant them parole. It is not considered thatthis situation is in the public interest.

A further effect of this delay is to either defer or displaceintensive transitional support programs, including thepreparation of substantial parole plans. The Division expectsthat the preparation of comprehensive release planscommences early enough to ensure that an offender’s risksand needs are addressed so that they may be consideredwhen an offender becomes eligible for parole. The efforts of Community Correctional Services in the timely preparationof release-related reports are to be commended. However,as discussed, where an offender should undertake the SOPthe Division cannot consider parole release plans until theoffender has completed the SOP, which may be someconsiderable time after the expiry of the non parole period.The administrative, financial and sentence managementburden that treatment delays place on the criminal justicesystem are significant and of concern.

Another cause of delay in undertaking the SOP is anoutstanding appeal. Although suitable, an offender cannotcommence the SOP until an appeal is finalised whether it beagainst sentence or conviction. This is because the



On 10 February 2012, the Court of Appeal delivered itsjudgement in a case where the offender who had beenplaced on a supervision order challenged a number of theconditions imposed by the court. Those conditions related to residence, curfew, access to schools and public parks,participation in the activities of clubs and organisations,contact with female children between the age of 12 and 16years, electronic or other monitoring restrictions and residingin a residential facility.

Each of these conditions imposed considerable restrictionson the offender. The Court of Appeal considered each in the context of the legislation and confirmed the conditionsrelating to residence, residential facility and monitoring,varied the curfew condition, and quashed those relating to schools and public parks, clubs and organisations andcontact with children.

The following principles arise from the Court’s judgement:

conditions should not be imposed for an improperpurpose

restrictions imposed by conditions should not constitutemore than the minimum interference with an offender’sliberty, privacy or freedom that is necessary to give effectto the conditions

conditions should be reasonably related to the gravity ofthe offending, and

conditions should not be ambiguous.

While the Court, and not the Division, imposes theconditions, it is nevertheless clear that these principles applyto the implementation of those conditions and thereforeshould be applied by the Division when deciding upon theexercise of a discretion conferred by a condition. Mostconditions imposed confer some discretion on the Divisionwith respect to their operation.

This means that the Division should not impose directions for an improper purpose, or that constitute more than theminimum interference with liberty, privacy, or freedom that is necessary to give effect to the conditions. Directionsimposed by the Division should be reasonably related to thegravity of the offending and they should not be ambiguous.

It may sometimes be the case that those involved inmanaging an offender on supervision, request directions thatare not consistent with these principles. Although suchrequests might be made with the best of intentions, theDivision has to be resolute in the application of theseprinciples and the exercise of its discretion.

Each case will vary and ultimately has to be judged on itsparticular circumstances. However, the Court of Appealjudgement illustrates the care that needs to be taken in eachcase and the careful application of the principles referred to.The Court’s judgment is timely in articulating these principlesand in providing guidance to the courts and the Division onthe approach to be taken in this difficult area.

The Division identifies with the comments of the Court ofAppeal concerning the Division’s difficulty in being able toattend satisfactorily to frequent requests, for example, forvariations of a curfew. As pointed out by the Court,applications have to be made well in advance if the Division isto properly evaluate them and this can mean that the flexibility,which the role of the Division is intended to produce, cannot as a matter of practicality be achieved. As the number ofoffenders on orders grows, consideration of requests forpermission under conditions is increasing and placingconsiderable pressure on the Division and its staff. Often suchrequests have to be considered by a special meeting of theDivision due to the need to make a decision within a certaintime period. It is inevitable that this situation will continue,with increased demands on the Division and staff.

Some offenders on supervision orders are also registeredunder the Sex Offender Registration Act [SORA]. This legislation imposes additional requirements andresponsibilities on them, which they must manage at thesame time as the onerous obligations of their supervisionorder. This is unsatisfactory and of no benefit in managingrisk. If anything, it is a hindrance to have offenders subject to different regimes that were introduced separately and are not integrated.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission delivered acomprehensive report on the operation of SORA in April2012. Recommendations for changes to make the legislationmore effective were made.

Page 91 of the Report discusses this situation. TheCommission states: “No useful protective purpose is servedby requiring people whose compliance with their supervisionorder is comprehensively monitored by a specialist division ofthe Adult Parole Board to abide by a second set of reportingobligations.”

Accordingly, the Commission recommended that reportingobligations under the SORA should be suspended if anoffender is subject to a supervision or interim supervisionorder.

The Division concurs with these views and supports therecommendation of the Commission. Its implementationwould facilitate the administration of supervision orderswithout affecting the risk.

AdministrationThe orders made by courts are becoming clearer in theirconditions and the discretion they confer upon the Divisionindicates that they regard the Division’s role as important.The significance that courts attach to the Division’sindependence is also clearer. As already discussed, thisinevitably means that the Division is drawn into operationaland process matters regarding the administration of orders.The administrative burden of the Division’s responsibilities isa significant one for both members and secretariat. Among


other things, frequent reporting on matters relating to casemanagement, the negotiation of complex and criticaloffender needs and administering three separate Actscomplicates meetings. Nevertheless, the Division willcontinue to discharge the responsibilities conferred upon it to the best of its ability and looks forward to working with itssecretariat and Corrections Victoria to improve processesand resources.

AcknowledgementsI take this opportunity to thank Community CorrectionalServices, especially specialist case managers, the staff atCorella Place, prison officers, clinicians and other serviceproviders for the cooperation and assistance they provide tothe Division. Their work is difficult and challenging in an areathat has a high profile and where, when things go wrong,some people are quick to criticise and attribute blame.

Members and SecretariatIt has been a challenging year for the members andsecretariat. I would like to thank the Division’s memberswho have discharged their responsibilities diligently and withcareful consideration of the needs of the community, theoffenders, victims and the law. I would like to thank them for contributing their time and expertise for anotherdemanding year.

Finally, but most importantly, I thank the staff of the Division,without whose efforts and dedication, the Division and itsstakeholders would not be able to discharge theirresponsibilities. The support and leadership shown by theDivision’s Manager, Anthony Vitale has, once again, beenoutstanding. I thank him and his team for their work in thecomplex, challenging and high profile area of sex offendermanagement.

Judge David Jones AMChairpersonDetention and Supervision Order Division

In last year’s report I touched on the Division’s achievements,which I measured by the stability of its staffing complement,

the solidarity of professional partnerships and our team’scommitment to improving and getting our processesright. In this reporting period, the need to worktogether with stakeholders, the community andwithin our own team has never been moreimportant.

While the Division’s team and I are clear on our responsibilities, the reportingrequirements of a secretariat are complex.Our objective is to support the Division’smembers, its Chairperson andstakeholders to achieve communityprotection and support offenderrehabilitation. The extent to which ourresponsibilities are met relies on ourprocesses and how we work withand within Corrections Victoria’scomplex offender managementframework, its resources andpolicies.

ResourcesOne of the greatest challenges for the Division in thisreporting period has been maintaining the integrity ofoperations with the resources provided to it. It remains theDivision’s general policy that all sex offenders assessed assuitable for participation in the SOP successfully completethe program in custody before being considered eligible forrelease. The SOP treatment system prioritises entry intoprograms based on a prisoner’s earliest eligibility date forparole. A gradual increase in shorter sentences for sexoffenders coupled with limited prison treatment beds hasseen the SOP develop a backlog of prisoners awaitingtreatment. The secretariat’s role in managing the impact of this is to liaise with the SOP to negotiate a resolution sothat the Division is able to achieve its objective of having allsuitable prisoners released as close to their earliest eligibilitydate as possible. I would like to take this opportunity tothank Melissa Braden and the SOP team for being responsivein developing a plan to overcome the backlog in thetreatment system.

This year, the Division’s workload increased significantly. Inthe context of a sustainable government initiative, this hasmade the management of human resources and demandmanagement challenging. Growth in these areas is likely tocontinue. Administratively, the Division’s mandate is broadand the work is complex and confronting. In January of thisyear, to meet demand, the Division resumed a full weeklysitting schedule. This included weekly meetings in Carlton aswell as servicing Hopkins correctional Centre, Langi Kal KalPrison and Fulham Correctional Centre as well as CorellaPlace. The significant increase in Special Meetings in thisreporting period was mostly related to post-sentencematters. As the Chairperson similarly points out, thisconfirms the Division’s position in relation to themanagement of these orders: that is, the Division’s role iscomplex and the criminal justice system continues to relyheavily on it to achieve its operational requirements.

ResponsivitySpecial Meetings for the Division increased by 80% in thereporting period. This confirms the growth in the Division’sworkload and demand on members to be responsive tooperational needs of Corrections Victoria’s Sex OffenderManagement Branch. This significant trend highlights twoimportant factors that the Division’s team will need tomanage well as it moves into another reporting period wheresimilar growth and demand is expected. First, the integrityof decisions needs to be safeguarded. This means thatdecisions always need to be evidence based and that thesystems by which the Division’s team gathers evidence andprovides it to decision-makers needs to be responsive. I amconfident in our systems and I take this opportunity to remindoperational areas of the importance that the Division placeson having access to full information when it is required tomake a decision. Secondly, the secretariat will need to

review ways to operate within its mandate of overseeingorders and not become involved in operational issues relatingto these orders. This is consistent with the Chairperson’sapproach and offers a means by which significantadministrative burdens on the Division’s team can berelieved.

Reviews and DevelopmentContinuous improvement is essential for the integrity of anyservice delivery model. Sex offender management is noexception. In 2004 and 2005 the Sex Offender RegistrationAct 2004 (SORA) and the former post-sentence legislation,the Serious Sex Offender Monitoring Act 2005 wererespectively introduced. These Acts saw a range of sexoffender management initiatives introduced across Victoria.This year, His Honour Judge David Jones AM and Iparticipated in a review of the SORA, undertaken by theVictorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC). In preparing forthe Division’s contribution to the review, statistics indicatedthat, at the time, over 85% of offenders registered under theSORA were also subject to some form of post-sentenceorder. This demonstrates the extent and significance of sexoffender management, the value that the community, rightly,places on it and the scope of responses the government hasimplemented to address this. For my team, this means thatit is very important that we get things right. Thank you toVLRC Chairperson, Professor Neil Rees and his team fordelivering a number of recommendations that complementand serve to enhance the Division’s operations.

Collaboration on reviews such as the one undertaken by theVLRC indicates that no services can fully function without thecooperation of others. Service systems, including courts, areno longer sentencing or managing offenders in silos and theconcept of therapeutic jurisprudence and multiagencycooperation has never been more important. This year theDivision developed its partnership with Corrections Victoria’sDisability Pathways. There is an overrepresentation of sexoffenders with an intellectual disability or cognitiveimpairment. In aiming to assist the Division to makeinformed decisions regarding these offenders, having theDivision’s team work more closely with Dr Barry Waterman’steam is an important step in developing stronger ties withagencies whose work with these offenders can affectdecisions made by members.

This year, the Division’s members and management teamparticipated in the Sentencing Advisory Council’s review ofthe adult parole system in Victoria. Among other things, ithighlighted the importance of having members andsecretariat versed in the interpretation and use of riskassessment tools. While the recommendations produced bythe report relate to the Board as whole, I remain committedto the development and implementation of a professionaldevelopment framework for the Division’s staff andmembers. This framework will aim to keep decision-makers


Manager’s Report

Our objective is to support the Division’s members,its Chairperson and stakeholders

to achieve community protection and support offender rehabilitation.


The Division’s jurisdiction covers the monitoring of custodial sentences where a non-parole period is fixed, the determinationof eligibility for and management of parole in the community and the transition to and management of post-sentence orders.

Sex offenders in custody whose sentences have a fixed non-parole period are subject to the Division’s jurisdiction.

▼

The Division monitors the progress of sex offenders under sentence. This includes incident and progress management.

▼

The Division regards a sex offender’s participation in suitable treatmentprograms mandatory before consideration is given eligibility for parole.

▼

The Division makes an assessment regarding the suitability of an offender’srelease on parole. The Division considers a range of risk assessments provided

to it by Community Correctional Services and other service providers. TheDivision places considerable weight on the risk to community and the

rehabilitation needs of the offender.

▼

The Division orders the conditional release of sex offenders. All victimsubmissions are considered by the Division and orders to protect victims

are made where appropriate.

▼

The Division closely monitors the offender’s transition from custody into the community.

▼

The Division monitors compliance with parole conditions in conjunction withCommunity Correctional Services.

Custod

y, Elig

ibility & Parole Man

agem

ent

Corre

ctio

ns A

ct19

86

Post-sen

tenc

e Or

der M

anag

emen

t

SSO(

DS)A

Unwilling to or hasnot completed the

Sex OffenderProgram? Unable

to secureappropriate

accommodation?Prison incidents?

Parole is cancelledfor offenders whoare considered anunacceptable riskor fail to complywith conditions.

Sentencedischarged.Ineligible for

SSO(DS)A & paroleseccessfullycompleted.

Breach proven.Supervision ordercontinues to runwhere a term ofimprisonment isimposed with a

non-parole period.

Application bySecretary/DPP torenew an ordersuccessful.

The Division is notified of the Secretary’s intention to apply for a supervisionorder or the DPP’s intention to apply for a detention order. The Division is

provided with copies of relevant assessments made pursuant to the SSO(DS)A.

▼

The Court makes a supervision order or detention order.

Tran

sitiona

lMan

agem

ent

The Division issues instructions and directions to offenders subject tosupervision orders to ensure the carrying into effect of conditions

set by the court.

▼

The progress of offenders on supervision orders is reviewd regularly, includingincident management by way of 24/7 special meeting management.

▼

The Division regularly approves a range of activities for, and requests from,offenders and issues instructions and directions.

▼

The Division conducts inquiries into the breach of supervision orders. It makes afinding in relation to the seriousness of the breach and makes recommendations

to the secretary in respect of its management.

▼

Order reviewed, revoked or completed.

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼▼

▼

▼

▼

Scope of the Division’s Jurisdiction


and staff, who regularly monitor incoming information relatedto the case management of sex offenders, familiar with best-practice assessment, intervention and transitional tools andmethods.

VictimsThe Division’s administration, by virtue of the legislation thatgives effect to it, needs to provide service to the community.Our relationship with the Victims Support Agency (VSA)allows us to do this well. Inquiries from victims andmembers of the community account for a significantproportion of the daily correspondence received by theDivision. I would like to take this opportunity to confirm, first, the value of the service that the VSA offers. It provideseligible victims of crime with more information than theDivision is permitted to under law. Secondly, I would like tothank Elizabeth Hall and Joel Jeremiejczyk for their ongoingcollaboration with the Division’s secretariat.

RecognitionAs I have mentioned, the role of the Division is broad andchallenging. Supporting the staff who maintain sex offendermanagement systems for the Division is critical. I would liketo thank the dedicated Division team who provide aresponsive and high-quality service to both the members and myself. Thank you to Michael Hepworth for his adviceregarding the legal management of complex cases. I takethis opportunity to thank David Provan and the Board’sManagement Team for their support and guidance. A specialthank you to Judge Jones for supporting us and maintaininga tone for the Division which its secretariat is so pleased toadminister, and to the Division’s membership for their valuedcontribution.

Anthony VitaleManagerDetention and Supervision Order Division


Corre

ctio

ns A

ct& SS

O(DS

)A

▼

▼

▼

Truong Trinh, Anthony Vitale, Kym Gray and Sarah Iavasile

with a non-parole period fixed by thecourt, both the post-sentence andparole orders will run concurrently. In these instances, the Division musthave regard to both pieces oflegislation.

LegislationThe main purpose of the SSO(DS)A is to enhance the protection of thecommunity by requiring offenders whohave served custodial sentences forcertain sexual offences and whopresent an unacceptable risk of harm to the community to be subject toongoing detention or supervision. The secondary purpose of the Act is to facilitate the treatment andrehabilitation of such offenders.

Sentencing courts set and control allconditions on supervision orders madeunder the SSO(DS)A. Conditionsconstitute the minimum interferencewith offenders’ liberty, privacy andfreedom of movement necessary toensure the purpose of the condition aswell as being reasonably related to thegravity of risk of reoffending. Wherethe Division is authorised, it canimpose a range of instructions anddirections on an order to ensure thatthe conditions set by the court arecarried into effect. The Secretary tothe Department of Justice remains theapplicant in all matters under theSSO(DS)A and the Division is able torecommend, to either the Secretary orthe sentencing court, a review ofconditions on a supervision order.

MonitoringCommunity Correctional Services,under its Specialist Case ManagementModel, provides the Division withexpertise in the intensive managementof high-risk sex offenders. TheDivision’s role in this process is toensure that offenders are managed in accordance with their risk, thelegislation which, inter alia, protectsthe human rights of the offender, and inaccordance with the conditionsimposed by the court when making orreviewing the supervision order.

VictimsPursuant to section 129 of theSSO(DS)A, the Division welcomes andconsiders all submissions made to it byvictims who are registered on theVictims Support Register.

Victims of crime and members of thecommunity may also make writtensubmissions directly to the Division.

Offender RightsThe SSO(DS)A takes account of theCharter of Human Rights andResponsibilities (2006) (the Charter).The human rights of offenders subjectto post–sentence orders are providedfor by the inclusion of provisionsrelating to the:

provision of reasons for directions if requested by an offender

provision of permission to inspectdocuments relating to a decision

right to make submissions to the

Division in relation to instructionsand directions issued by theDivision, and

right to be heard by the Division in relation to submissions.

MembersThe Division comprises of the followingmembership.

Judge David Jones AM (Chairperson)

Justice Bernard Teague AO (Judicial Member)

His Honour John Dugan AM (Judicial Member)

Michael Hepworth (Full-Time Member)

Carmel Arthur (Community Member)

Jim Berg (Community Member)

Dr Julian Davis (Community Member)

Vera Olson (Community Member)

Judith Wright (Community Member)

Janet Farrow (Community Member)

Dr Kerry Jones (Community Member)

Total Judicial Members 3

Full-Time Member 1

Total Community Members 7

Total 11

Female Members 5

Male Members 6

Total 11


Custody, Eligibility and ParoleManagementThe Division engages with sentencedsex offenders in the early stages oftheir sentence. This enables it torequire, as early as possible, thatprisoners undertake to engage inprograms that address their assessedrisks and need.

The aim of the Division is to prepareprisoners for supervised release andsafe reintegration into the communityon, or as close to, their parole earliesteligibility dates as possible, where suchrelease is appropriate having regard toall the circumstances and the Board’sassessment of any risk to communitysafety.

ProgramsCorrections Victoria’s Sex OffenderProgram (SOP) assesses offenders todetermine if they are at a high,moderate or low risk of sexualreoffending. Offenders assessed aslow risk receive intensive case andenvironmental management throughCommunity Correctional Services.

It is the Division’s general policy that allsex offenders assessed as suitable forparticipation in the SOP, conducted inprison, successfully complete theprogram before being consideredeligible for release. Failure of sexoffenders to participate inrecommended programs may result in denial of parole.

Orders for Release of SexOffenders who are not Subjectto a Supervision or DetentionOrderCommunity safety is the paramountconsideration in all decisions relating to the granting of parole. Through thegranting of parole the Division alsoseeks to facilitate the rehabilitation of the offender, recognising that thecommunity benefits from therehabilitation of offenders.

In determining eligibility, the Divisionconsiders a range of assessments andinformation provided to it. Based on

the material relevant to it, each case isconsidered individually. The materialsmay include clinical reports, paroleassessment reports and plans,residential environmental scans,progress and incident reports andvictim submissions.

Under the Corrections Act 1986, theDivision imposes stringent conditionson parole orders of sex offenders.Through the regular review ofoffenders, it aims to ensure that sexoffenders understand that theircompliance with these conditions isrigorously enforced. For example, theDivision may require that sex offendersparticipate in the SOP and undertakepsychiatric or other treatment in thecommunity. In some cases, theDivision requires that an offender mustnot:

associate with certain persons

engage in particular activities

be employed in particular jobs

reside in particular geographicallocations

have contact with victims or theirfamily members, even undersupervision, and

have any contact with children oryoung persons

The Division manages non-complianceand escalations in, or presentations of,unacceptable risk to the community inthe same way that other parolebreaches are dealt with.

Transitional ManagementThe eligibility for consideration underthe SSO(DS)A post-sentence regimerequires that offenders, among otherfactors, be remanded in custody orserving a custodial sentence. Mostoffenders subject to a supervision orderwill have transitioned from a paroleorder.

The transitional management of suchoffenders requires that the Divisionuphold the sentence structure imposedby the court, including the non-paroleperiod and the requirements that theDivision, acting as the Board, arerequired to discharge under theCorrections Act 1986.

The Division does value additionalinformation, such as psychologicalassessments and other materialprepared for the post-sentence hearingas beneficial in its adjudicationthroughout the transitional period.

Where offenders on supervision ordershave breached an order and aresentenced to a term of imprisonment


Post-Sentence Order ManagementOrders

Supervision Orders Detention Orders

Court of Origin County and Supreme Courts Supreme Court

Max Length 15 years 3 years

Minimum ReviewPeriod 3 years (or at a shorter interval 1 year (or at a shorter

if required by the court) interval if required bythe Court)

Placement Broader community or Corella Place Greenhill Detention Unit– Hopkins Correctional Centre

Conditions Set by Court and administered Not applicableby the Division

Court Condition That you must comply with any form of electronic monitoring as directed by the Adult Parole Board.

Division Instruction The Adult Parole Board directs you toand Direction comply with electronic monitoring.

Example of an instruction and direction issued by the Division pursuant to a courtordered condition.

Division’s Management of Post-Sentence OrdersPursuant to section 72(1)(bf) of theCorrections Act 1986, the Division isrequired to report on its managementof offenders subject to post-sentenceorders.

Corella Place

2011 2010 2009-12 -11 -10

Offenders directed to reside at Corella Place 8 8 4

After having given due consideration tothe risk posed to the community andthe impact on the rehabilitation of theoffender, the Division may direct anoffender to reside at Corella Placewhere the conditions imposed by theCourt empower it to do so. CorellaPlace is a transitional residential facilitylocated near Ararat for offenderssubject to supervision orders and whoare without suitable accommodation inthe broader community.

The Division has and will continue toview the placement of offenders atCorella Place as a last resort. Theexpectation is that matters concerningoffenders residing within the community,which are not related to the risk ofsexually reoffending or which do notadversely affect the rehabilitation of theoffender, will be managed in thecommunity where possible.

In the 2011-12 reporting period, theDivision gave effect to court-orderedresidential conditions, by directingoffenders to reside at Corella Place on eight occasions.

Emergency Powers

2011 2010 2009-12 -11 -10

Offenders in respect of whom an emergency power was exercised 1 0 0

The emergency powers captured in theSSO(DS)A provide the Division with theauthority to give directions to managean offender in a way that is inconsistentwith, or not provided for, by theconditions of the supervision order.Emergency powers may be used whenthere is an imminent risk of harm to theoffender or the community or whenaccommodation specified by the courtas a condition of the order becomesunavailable.

During 2011-12, the Division used itsemergency powers once. This was thefirst time it has exercised this power.

Electronic MonitoringWhere authorised by the Court makingthe order the Division is able to directoffenders subject to supervision andinterim supervision orders to complywith electronic monitoring. In the2011-12 reporting period, 17 offenderson supervision or interim supervisionorders were directed by the Division to comply with electronic monitoring.

2011 2010 2009-12 -11 -10

Offenders directed to comply with electronic monitoring under a supervision or interim supervision order 17 30 5

Breaches of ConditionsIn 2011-12, the Division investigatedfour instances where offendersbreached conditions on a supervisionorder. On each occasion, the Divisioninquired into the seriousness of the

breach and in this reporting period,pursuant to s.161 of the SSO(DS)A,made one of the followingrecommendations:

(a) take no action

(b) give a formal warning to theoffender

(f) recommend that the Secretarybring proceedings in respect of theoffence.

Pursuant to s172(3), the Secretarymay, after having regard to theseriousness of the breach, file a chargesheet without having the Divisioninvestigate. In this reporting period,the Division noted eight instanceswhere the Secretary initiated breachproceedings for offenders onsupervision orders

2011 2010 2009-12 -11 -10

Number of breaches of conditions on a supervision or interim supervision order 12 2 0

Activities of the DivisionThe Division, consisting of theChairperson, or acting Chairperson, and two other members from thepanel, meets weekly at its premises in Carlton as well as conducting prisonhearings with sex offenders. TheDivision meets with offenders residingat Corella Place, Langi Kal Kal Prisonand Hopkins Correctional Centre aswell as conducting special meetings.Special meetings are unscheduledmeetings that comprise a panel ofDivision members usually convened at short notice to respond to an issuethat cannot be left until a scheduledmeeting. Inevitably, the number ofspecial meetings is increasing and islikely to continue to do so as thenumber of sex offenders on supervisionorders and parole orders increases andthe requirements of supervisionbecome greater.


Orders Made By the Court

Post-Sentence Orders Made in 2011-12The courts made 50 new post-sentence orders in the 2011-12 reporting period.

Of the total number of orders made,the majority (88%) were full orders,indicating that the processes for theapplication and finalisation of matterspursuant to the SSO(DS)A areresponsive. The number of new ordersmade in this reporting period increasedby 39% from the previous year.

Forty-four full orders were made by thecourts in this reporting period. Thirteenwere made as a result of a review ofan extended supervision order. Thesefigures signal the final stages of thegradual ceasing of effect of extendedsupervision orders made pursuant tothe SSOMA. Four supervision ordersconfirmed interim supervision orders.

Length of Supervision Orders Pursuant to the SSO(DS)AExcluding Interim Orders

Duration ofSupervision 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-15Orders Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Yrs Total

2011-12 11 4 10 2 3 2 3 6 3 44

2010-11 3 0 13 2 1 5 1 2 4 31

2009-10 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 7

Applications Refused and Orders Not MadeOne application for a supervision orderand one application for a detentionorder were refused by the court.

Orders Revoked, Overturnedand CompletedIn the 2011-12 reporting period, thecourts ordered that three supervisionorders be revoked at the time of theirreview. One order was completed.

Current Post-Sentence OrdersUnder the Division’sJurisdictionAs at 30 June 2012, the Division wasresponsible for the administration of 85post-sentence orders.


Statistical Profile

Detention Orders Supervision Orders

Orders made Interim Detention Detention Supervision Supervision Interim Interim Totalby the Court Orders made by Orders Orders Orders Supervision Supervision

the Supreme Court made by made by made by Orders Ordersthe Supreme the Supreme the County made by the made by

Court Court Court Supreme the CountyCourt Court

2011-12 0 0 1 43 0 6 50

2010-11 0 0 1 30 0 5 36

2009-10 0 0 0 7 1 5 13

Supervision Orders 80

Extended Supervision Orders 3

Interim Supervision Orders 2

Our Organisation

51

Sex Offender CasesConsidered by the Division in 2011-12The Division considered 2,936 casesrelating to orders made under theSSO(DS)A and the SSOMA, as well assex offenders on parole or in custodyand for whom parole is beingconsidered. This figure is an increaseof 33% on the number of casesconsidered in 2010-11and reflects the ever-increasing workload andpressures on the Division which areunlikely to abate in the future but ratherto continue to grow.

MeetingsIn this reporting period, the Divisionconvened on 121 occasions.

Year Weekly sittings Special Country Totalat Carlton Meetings Prison

Sittings

2011-12 35 74 12 121

2010-11 39 41 8 88

2009-10 15 4 7 26

VictimsThe Division is committed to theconsideration of victim submissions in respect of offenders in custody, on parole in the community or subjectto a supervision order.

In this reporting period, the VictimsSupport Agency (VSA) invited sevenregistered victims to provide a writtensubmission pursuant to the SSO(DS)A,of which it received four. The Divisionalso received and considered 54 victimsubmissions through the VSA for parolematters.

Supervision Orders Parole

Submissions received and considered 4 54


Other 89

SSO(DS)A 533

SSOMA 72

Parole/Custody 2242

Community Relationships

Visitor Profile

Privacy/Information

Financial Performance


While the Board’s hearings are notopen to the public, it welcomesapplications from individuals who havea legitimate purpose and wish toobserve Board meetings.

Those with a legitimate purpose mayinclude judges, magistrates, academicresearchers and students, traineecommunity corrections staff, andpersons with a particular interest in theoperations of the Board, for example,those engaged in similar operationsfrom other jurisdictions.

By encouraging visitors, the Boardtakes an open and transparentapproach to its operations, whileenabling visitors to gain a greaterunderstanding of the Board’sresponsibilities. At the same time, the Board ensures its meetings areconducted with the utmost integrityand a high standard of quality in termsof its decision-making.

All visitors are required to read the FactSheet 2 - Observers at Board Meetingsand sign a Confidentiality Declaration.The Chairperson of the Division ensuresthat the visitor has signed thedeclaration and explains theimportance of maintaining the strictconfidentiality of the proceedings.

All visitors to the Board must:

not participate in the hearing in anyway

not speak, and avoid any form ofnon-verbal communication duringthe hearing

not take notes without the priorpermission of the Chairperson ofthe Division

not bring cameras, tape recorders,mobile phones, palm pilots or anyother personal electronic deviceinto the hearing room

leave the hearing room, if asked,while confidential or sensitiveinformation is being discussed or ifit is determined that their presenceaffects the hearing process

avoid discussing the hearing withanother person while outside thehearing room.

During 2011-12, 94 visitors (69 in2010-11) attended meetings of theBoard, including The Hon. Jill HennessyMP, Member for Altona, ShadowMinister for the Anti-corruptionCommission, Corrections and CrimePrevention, and staff/students from the following organisations:

trainee Community CorrectionsOfficers from various locations

Australian Institute of Public Safety,La Trobe University, University ofMelbourne, Monash University,Royal Melbourne Institute ofTechnology and Victoria University

Victorian magistrates, judges andcourt staff

various work units withinCorrections Victoria

Victims Support Agency

Youth Parole and Youth ResidentialBoards of Victoria.

Visitor Profile


The Board and its administrative staffaim to build positive and constructiveworking relationships by regularattendance at conferences to speakabout the work of the Board, meetingwith business units within CorrectionsVictoria and other agencies andparticipating in a range of initiatives.

Meetings and Working PartiesDuring 2011-12, staff of the Boardparticipated in the following meetings:

Carlton Building ManagementSteering Committee

Justice Mental Health PartnershipGroup

Offender Management Managersmeetings, Corrections Victoria

Parole Practice Committee

ROPE and Victoria Police liaisonmeetings

Serious Violent Offender SteeringCommittee

Sex Offender Program staff

Targeted Programs (OffenderManagement Division) liaisonmeetings

The Division, Sex Offender Programand Sex Offender ManagementBranch Quarterly Meetings

Unlawful Release and DetentionWorking Party

Victims Register SteeringCommittee.

InitiativesDuring 2011-12, the Boardstrengthened its relationships withstakeholders and the community byparticipating in a range of initiatives.

2011 Corrections VictoriaCommunity Work PartnershipsAwardsCommunity groups engaging offendersto help Victorians in innovative wayswere recognised at the 2011Corrections Victoria Community WorkPartnerships Awards on 16 February2012. Justice Whelan was a memberof the judging panel. Michael Hepworthand David Provan were pleased to

attend the awards presentationfunction.

The Awards are presented each year at an event attended by the Ministerfor Corrections and the Commissionerof Corrections Victoria, as well asCorrections Victoria staff andcommunity work partners fromthroughout Victoria. Since its inceptionin 1999, the Awards ceremony hasproven to be an excellent opportunityfor participants in community workprograms and staff to meet withrepresentatives from other non-profitorganisations and to see theoutstanding work that is beingachieved by prisoners and offendersacross Victoria.

‘A Conversation with theBoard’As part of the Board’s commitment tocontinuous improvement, the Board’smanagement team offered a service to all prisons to attend peer educatormeetings and facilitate informationsessions, which were called ‘AConversation with the Board’. Thepurpose of the session is to meet withthe peer educators and respond to anygeneral issues and questions relatingto parole and the process. PaulineBailey, Cheryn Leahy, Anthony Vitaleand David Provan attended eightprisons between July 2011 and June2012 and facilitated informationsessions.

Parole Practice CommitteeStaff of the Board participated in thequarterly Parole Practice Committee(PPC) meetings. PPC membershipincludes representatives from eachCommunity Correctional Services (CCS)region together with staff of the Board.The Committee’s purpose is to providea forum where participants cansuggest ideas for improvement,discuss issues, challenges anddeveloping trends, as well as engage in activities and joint projects that willstrengthen the working relationshipbetween CCS and the Board.

Community CorrectionalServices TrainingCommunity Correctional Servicesprovides centralised pre-servicetraining for Community CorrectionsOfficers (CCO), Leading CCO and SeniorCCO staff. The training is provided bythe Centralised Training Team (CTT),which focuses on building foundationskills to ensure consistent practice,raise standards and support astructured learning and developmentculture. As part of the training, the CTT has established a network ofinformation sessions delivered by keystakeholders to Corrections Victoria.One such relationship is with theBoard, which provided informationsessions, including tours of the Board,to enhance the knowledge that CCSstaff have about the role, jurisdiction,functions and legislative responsibilitiesof the Board.

Staff of the Board delivered a total of 5 CTT information sessions during2011-12.

Information SessionsStaff of the Board delivered informationsessions at the Annual ReintegrationServices meeting, ACSO (AustralianCommunity Support Organisation),Community Correctional Services andPrison General Managers forum,brimbyn barring wilam (find path home)Koori Transition Forum, IndependentPrison Visitor Scheme, Court RegistrarTrainees Royal Melbourne Institute ofTechnology (RMIT) University Program,Intake and Assessment WorkerNetwork meeting, Human Rights Unit,Child Witness Service, Specialist CaseWorker Induction Training, VictorianLaw Reform Commission SexOffenders Roundtable and at theAustralian Psychological Society'sCollege of Forensic Psychologistsannual meeting.

A total of 26 information sessions weredelivered during 2011-12.


Community Relationships

Cheryn Leahy explains Fact Sheet 2 – Observers at Board Meetings and the Confidentiality Declaration to visitor Sue Frisch

Operating Statement andFinancial Summary—2007-08to 2011-12

RevenueThe Board is funded by CorrectionsVictoria and utilises the Department’ssystems for the payment of itsaccounts. Consequently, there is norequirement for the Board to maintain a bank account.

Audited AccountsThe Board’s accounts are audited aspart of the accounts of CorrectionsVictoria, Department of Justice and arepublished in the Department’s AnnualReport.

Funding 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 2007-08

$ $ $ $ $

Total appropriation from Corrections Victoria (includes base and funding for initiatives) 2,808,800 2,777,400 2,523,200 2,171,000 1,805,200

ExpenditureSalaries to staff 1,401,036 1,356,329 1,316,818 1,135,530 934,572

Sessional member fees 204,649 174,463 153,353 110,710 90,486

Salary related on-costs 292,676 289,739 296,994 193,243 183,662

Operating expenses 878,100 846,093 674,156 792,652 686,514

Total 2,776,461 2,666,624 2,441,321 2,232,135 1,895,234

Operating Expenditure Percentage Distribution 2011-12

AssetsThe Board is not a body corporate, and does not have power under itslegislation to purchase, hold, or disposeof real and personal property.

Employee BenefitsAll employees of the Board are paid byCorrections Victoria, and as such theBoard does not make payments directlyin respect of employees’ superannuation,payroll tax and WorkCover.

Member RemunerationRemuneration of sessional membersand the Board’s full-time member isfixed by the Governor in Council.

Judicial Members are not remuneratedfor their work on the Board. RetiredJudicial Members and Community

Members are remunerated at the rateof $474 per sitting day. RetiredJudicial Members are remunerated atthe rate of $548 per day when actingas chairperson of a division. Theserates are set out in the Department ofPremier and Cabinet’s Guidelines forthe Appointment and Remuneration ofPart-Time Non-Executive Directors ofState Government Boards andMembers of Statutory Bodies andAdvisory Committees.

Budget Strategy for 2012-13Our budget strategy for 2012-13 is tomaximise productivity while operatingwithin our budget allocation.

Financial Performance


Freedom of Information and PrivacyThe privacy principles contained in theVictorian Information Privacy Act 2000and Corrections Act 1986 prescribe themanner in which the Board handlesinformation collected and/or receivedabout prisoners, offenders andparolees.

It is the Board’s policy not to providecopies of any reports or meetingminutes to those who make a request,even if the request is accompanied bya ‘written authority’. The reportsprepared by psychiatrists,psychologists, Community CorrectionsOfficers and other professionals toassist the Board in carrying out itsdecision-making function are submitted‘in confidence’ and are ‘strictlyconfidential’.

The Board is not subject to theprovisions of the Freedom ofInformation Act 1982.

Fact Sheets The Board makes available thefollowing fact sheets:

Fact Sheet 1 - General Guide toParole

Fact Sheet 2 - Observers at BoardMeetings and ConfidentialityDeclaration

Fact Sheet 3 - General Guide toPrisoner Interviews

Fact Sheet 4 - General Guide forVictims

Fact Sheet 5 - Parolees Requiredto Attend the Board

Fact Sheet 6 - Information forCommunity Corrections Officerswho Attend the Board

Fact Sheet 7 - The Detention andSupervision Order Division of theBoard

Fact Sheet 8 - Request for aReview of a Board Decision

Available PublicationsThe Board offers a range ofpublications and information to thepublic, including:

Adult Parole Board of VictoriaAnnual Report

Fifty Years of the Adult ParoleSystem in Victoria 1957 to 2007

Victims Support Agency brochure -Victims Register

Corrections Victoria brochure - Sex Offender Program

WebsiteFor further information about the Board,visit our website atwww.justice.vic.gov.au/paroleboard.

A Sustainable FutureThe Board is committed to responsiblesustainability management, andoperates in a manner that protects andimproves the environment.

A number of energy and water savingfeatures which will help us reduce ourimpact on the environment have beenintroduced at the Board’s premises at444 Swanston Street, Carlton. Thebuilding has lighting on sensors forafter hours and sensor lighting in thebathrooms. The kitchen has waterreduction measures, water wise taps,recycling and compost bins.

Public transport is close to itspremises, and Board members, staffand visitors are encouraged to use it.Bicycle racks are also provided in thebasement of the building for those staffwho ride to work.


Privacy/Information

Sessional Members Fees 7%

Salary Related On-Costs 11%

Salaries to Staff 50%

Operating Expenses 32%

For Our Readers

Distribution and AdditionalCopiesWe print and distribute 500 copieseach year and, once tabled inParliament, the Annual Report is available from our websitewww.justice.vic.gov.au/paroleboard.

More InformationTo find out more about the informationcontained in this Annual Report,telephone the Board on 9094 2111 or 1300 766 946 (Victorian CountryCallers).

FeedbackYour feedback is valuable to the Boardand helps to improve the quality of ourAnnual Report. To provide feedbackplease contact the Board by telephoneor email your feedback [email protected].

57

A Appointments – Board Members 16

B Board Members 16

Breach of Parole Orders 30

Breaches Resulting in Cancellation 30

Breaches Not Resulting in Cancellation 31

Business Plan Overview 12

C Case Management 26

Chairperson’s Message 6

Code of Conduct 20

Community Relationships 52

Contact Details Back cover

D Definitions 1

Detention and Supervision Order Division 35

Detention Orders 48

E Employee Remuneration and Benefits 22

Equal Employment Opportunity 23

Extended Supervision Orders 5

F Fact Sheets 54

Factors that Influence the Board’s Decisions 27

Financial Performance 55

Flexible Working Arrangements 22

Freedom of Information 54

Functions of the Board 15

G General Manager’s Report 9

Governance Polices 15

H Highlights 3

Home Detention 34

I Information Technology 10

Interstate Transfers 33

M Management Team 24

Meetings of the Board 15

Mission 1

O Objectives 1

Occupational Health and Safety 23

Offenders Considered for Release 27

Offenders in Custody 4

Operating Statement and Financial Summary 55

Organisational Chart 14

P Parole Orders CompletedSuccessfully 31

Parole Practice Committee 52

People on Home Detention 34

People on Parole 30

Performance Management and Progression Plans 22

Prison Visits 15

Privacy 54

Professional Development 22

Publications 54

R Releases and Denials 27

S Special Conditions of Parole 28

Staff Movements and Appointments 10

Staff Profile 21

Supervision Orders 48

Sustainability Management 54

V Victims of Crime 29

Victoria Police Operation ROPE(Recidivist Offenders ParoleEnforcement) 3

Vision 1

Visitor Profile 53

W Website 54

Workforce Profile 22

Y Youth Transfers 33


Index

The photographs in the Annual Reportare taken of our members and staff as they go about their daily work. We appreciate the willingness ofmembers and staff to be photographedand agreeing to have their photographincluded in the Annual Report. We thank them for their co-operationand assistance.

Designed and produced byDesign by Stavros(03) 9428 4586

Front cover: His Honour Ross Betts(Judicial Member)


case management cont.assets.justice.vic.gov.au/.../apb_annual_report11-2012whole_part2.pdfeach case...

Documents