John Grant FAGAN - 19/10/2016

Parole Hearing
Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

John Grant FAGAN

Hearing: 19 October 2016 at [withheld]

Members of the Board:

  • Judge A Tompkins – Panel Convenor
  • Mr G Crowley
  • Ms S Pakura


  • [withheld]

Support Persons:

  • [withheld]
  • [withheld]
  • [withheld]


1. John Fagan appears before the Board for consideration of parole.

2. On 30 September 2014 he was sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment following conviction for a wide range of fraud offending which Mr Fagan, by the use of forged documents and a variety of other stratagems, managed to cause a number of people who invested significant amounts of money in companies controlled by or associated with him lost their investment.

3. Almost exactly a month following the commencement of that sentence, Mr Fagan absconded from a work party and went to [withheld] where he unlawfully detained her.  As a result of that, Mr Fagan received a cumulative term of imprisonment of two years, after convictions for kidnapping and escaping.

4. It seems although we do not have the appellate decision that Mr Fagan appealed against his fraud sentence, but that was unsuccessful.  As a result of that Mr Fagan has a statutory release  and sentence end date of 29 October 2019.

5. Mr Fagan is assessed at being between low to medium risk of further fraud and sexual offending, but because of his relatively low RoC*Rol score of 0.15535 he does not qualify for departmental rehabilitative intervention, although he has completed a [withheld] Programme whilst in prison which followed on from a [withheld] Programme in the community.

6. When Mr Fagan first appeared at his parole eligibility date before the Board in June of this year, the Board sought a psychological assessment.  The Board now has that and that notes some fairly deeply entrenched psychological issues, which underpinned a significant amount of Mr Fagan’s criminal offending.  It notes that on the ASRS Mr Fagan is assessed at being in the medium to high risk category, but other actuarial scales with respect to violence and violent related sexual offenders put him at a lower risk assessment.  The psychologist has considered that Mr Fagan has a medium to low risk of re offending overall and, should re offending occur, it is likely to include forgery and fraud and, that if sexual offending was to occur, it would occur in the context of a relationship.

7. Mr Fagan maintains that he has changed significantly since commencing this sentence.  That he is not interested in a relationship.  That he wishes to abandon any involvement in entrepreneurial or business related activities and live a plain and simple life.  The psychological assessment notes that Mr Fagan has been undertaking continuing counselling with the prison chaplain and that that continue.

8. It is apparent and Mr Fagan was anxious to confirm that despite at sentencing his counsel maintaining that one, at least, of his fraud victims would be likely to receive significant reparation from a somewhat convoluted property development deal that Mr Fagan claimed to have some part in.  That at the time of sentence nothing had come of that.  Mr Fagan, again, sketched that deal out briefly for the Board and maintained that one, at least, of his fraud victims would receive funds from that but acknowledged that as at today (similar to the position at sentencing two years ago) no actual money had been paid to that victim.  Mr Fagan accepted that, given his history both the index offending and earlier convictions, oral reports of likely reparation can only be given much reduced weight by the Board in the absence of clear and compelling documentary proof.

9. In all of those circumstances the Board has decided that Mr Fagan still represents an undue risk to the safety of the community.  His offending history reaching back now some decades is notable for both repetitive fraud offending and for significant instrumental violence.  Whilst Mr Fagan might be frustrated that he has not been able to access substantive rehabilitative intervention to date on his sentence, the corollary of that for the Board is that the Board cannot be satisfied that Mr Fagan’s risk to the safety of the community has been reduced, so that it is no longer undue.

10. The Board accepts that Mr Fagan continues to have good [withheld] support and that he has not had misconducts and has taken advantage of such opportunities as have been made available to him during his sentence.  The Board would encourage Mr Fagan to continue with the counselling he is presently receiving.

11. It concludes for the reasons set out in this decision that parole must be declined.  The Board will see Mr Fagan again within 12 months and by 31 November 2017 in any event.

Judge A Tompkins
Panel Convenor