❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding the parole conditions of an offender involved in a tragic shooting. The questions cover the offender's sentence, parole conditions, risk classification, parole statistics, and breach data.
AnsweredQoN 955Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the parole conditions of the man arrested following the tragic shooting of a 21-year-old woman yesterday. (1) What sentence was the offender serving and for what offence? (2) What were the reporting conditions of his parole and did these include drug testing? (3) Why was the offender classified at high risk? (4) How many prisoners were on parole in Western Australia for the 2002-03 financial year, and how many were managed at high risk? (5) How many breaches of parole were recorded in each category? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(1) What sentence was the offender serving and for what offence? (2) What were the reporting conditions of his parole and did these include drug testing? (3) Why was the offender classified at high risk? (4) How many prisoners were on parole in Western Australia for the 2002-03 financial year, and how many were managed at high risk? (5) How many breaches of parole were recorded in each category? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(2) What were the reporting conditions of his parole and did these include drug testing? (3) Why was the offender classified at high risk? (4) How many prisoners were on parole in Western Australia for the 2002-03 financial year, and how many were managed at high risk? (5) How many breaches of parole were recorded in each category? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(3) Why was the offender classified at high risk? (4) How many prisoners were on parole in Western Australia for the 2002-03 financial year, and how many were managed at high risk? (5) How many breaches of parole were recorded in each category? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(4) How many prisoners were on parole in Western Australia for the 2002-03 financial year, and how many were managed at high risk? (5) How many breaches of parole were recorded in each category? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(5) How many breaches of parole were recorded in each category? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(1) What sentence was the offender serving and for what offence? (2) What were the reporting conditions of his parole and did these include drug testing? (3) Why was the offender classified at high risk? (4) How many prisoners were on parole in Western Australia for the 2002-03 financial year, and how many were managed at high risk? (5) How many breaches of parole were recorded in each category? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(2) What were the reporting conditions of his parole and did these include drug testing? (3) Why was the offender classified at high risk? (4) How many prisoners were on parole in Western Australia for the 2002-03 financial year, and how many were managed at high risk? (5) How many breaches of parole were recorded in each category? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(3) Why was the offender classified at high risk? (4) How many prisoners were on parole in Western Australia for the 2002-03 financial year, and how many were managed at high risk? (5) How many breaches of parole were recorded in each category? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(4) How many prisoners were on parole in Western Australia for the 2002-03 financial year, and how many were managed at high risk? (5) How many breaches of parole were recorded in each category? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(5) How many breaches of parole were recorded in each category? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
I thank the member for Nedlands for some notice of the question. I have sought answers from the Department of Justice, and it has provided me with the following advice - (1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(1) On 26 February 1998 the offender was sentenced to an aggregate of eight years imprisonment for aggravated burglary and armed robbery while in company offences. He was released on parole on 8 December 2002 for a period due to expire on 8 December 2004. (2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(2) The following requirements were attached to the parole order: to undertake substance abuse counselling as directed, to undergo urine analysis and such other testing for drug use as directed by the supervising community corrections officer, and to have no direct or indirect contact with the victims. (3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(3) The offender was classified as high risk due to his past offending history of violent offences, previous poor response to parole supervision and illicit drug use. (4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(4) For the 2002-03 financial year, 1 677 offenders were subject to parole orders, and 1 180 were managed as high risk at some time during their parole order. Of those, 869 offenders were managed as high risk during their entire parole order. (5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
(5) The information on each category is unavailable. However, I am advised that 32 per cent of all parole orders issued were breached during the 2002-03 financial year.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.