CARROLL - Michael John - 17/10/2012
Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002
Michael John Carroll
17 October 2012
Members of the Board:
Hon Justice J W Gendall (Panel Convenor)
Mr A Ritchie
Dr J Skipworth
Ms S Pakura
Mr M Bott
Decision of the Board
Michael John Carroll is serving a sentence of preventive detention imposed on 28 March 1988 so he has spent 24 and a half years in prison, apart from the time when he was paroled. That however ended in August 2003 when he was recalled after he had absconded from the Salisbury Street Foundation premises.
He was last seen by the Board in November last year, the Panel noting that he was a high risk and had a fragile and low mood. Since then his emotional responses have improved and although he was suspicious and mistrusted psychologists initially, he has become more settled in his behaviour and counselling over the last few months. The psychologist reports that his improvement is not sufficient to warrant any realistic reduction in his high risk and that he is unlikely to change significantly until he gains more control over his emotions. However, he is doing well in the one-to-one psychological treatment and this should continue. He remains an undue risk and parole must be declined but we support the continuation of the counselling and the aim that he be transferred to (withheld) for Internal Self Care and later consideration for release to work.
Parole is declined and he will be seen again in 12 months.
Hon Justice J W Gendall
You may apply for a review of the Board’s decision under section 67(1). The only grounds under which you may make an application for review are that the Board, in making its decision:
a) Failed to comply with procedures in the Parole Act 2002; or
b) Made an error of law; or
c) Failed to comply with Board policy resulting in unfairness to the offender; or
d) Based its decision on erroneous or irrelevant information that was material to the decision reached; or
e) Acted without jurisdiction.
To apply for a review you must write to the Board within 28 days of its decision stating which of the above ground(s) you consider to be relevant in your case and giving reasons why you believe that ground(s) applies.
Reviews are considered on the papers only. There is no hearing in respect of your Review Application.