A serial criminal - who killed university student Clea Rose while driving a stolen car - has been recommended for parole, despite facing trial for fracturing a guard's skull, neck, and back in a jail bashing.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The man, who cannot be named, aborted a bid to be released on bail to a rehabilitation facility on Friday after additional information about the program could not be put before the ACT Supreme Court.
The man, 27, was just 15 when he struck and killed Clea Rose in 2005 in a stolen car during a police pursuit.
The sentence is due to expire in September next year, however, the non-parole period ended in July.
During the bail application, the court heard the man had been charged with threat to kill, recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, strangulation, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm over an incident at the Alexander Maconochie Centre in January.
He has pleaded not guilty and is expected to stand trial in the ACT Supreme Court next year.
Court documents said on January 15 he woke his cellmate with a razor blade to his throat.
It is alleged he assaulted and threatened to kill the cellmate before Corrections officers attempted to restrain the man, but he broke free and punched and attempted to choke the other prisoner with a handcuff chain.
The man then allegedly attempted fight off five guards, punching one in the face before swinging him face first into a desk.
The guard suffered fractures to his nose, skull and vertebrae in his neck and upper back.
He is then accused of punching a second guard, causing cuts and abrasions to his face.
The man was recently recommended for parole on the condition he go into residential rehabilitation upon release.
He subsequently applied for bail to attend the facility and the matter came before Justice Hilary Penfold on Friday.
Prosecutor Murray Thomas opposed the application, arguing the man was likely to commit further offences if released.
Mr Thomas told the court the man had an extensive criminal history and had committed multiple infractions while in custody.
He said the man had been caught in possession of contraband on eight occasions, returned positive drug tests on two occasions, refused drug tests, and been uncooperative with guards.
Mr Thomas said the man's parole had twice previously been revoked for reoffending.
The court heard the man had cleaned up his act in recent months, including returning clear drug tests, but Mr Thomas said six months of relatively good behaviour in custody did not prove the man had changed his ways.
"The court can have absolutely no confidence that he won't offend if released. He has a significant track record of reoffending," Mr Thomas said.
"He is a danger to society ... [and] those in close proximity.
"Even in prison, he doesn't stop, he commits offences. His record is littered with them."
In opposing bail, Mr Thomas suggested the parole board had merely been given the "Reader's Digest" version of alleged offences and based their decision upon limited information.
Mr Thomas said the parole board had been told the man had been assessed as a medium risk of reoffending, although a pre-sentence report, produced when he was last sentenced, rated him a medium-to-high risk.
Mr Thomas said he behaviour since that time had escalated.
"Your Honour might find it puzzling in light of other information.
"He simply shouldn't be granted bail because the risks are too high.
"He simply can't be trusted ... to do what he's undertaken. Even in custody he fails to abide by the rules."
The man's legal aid lawyer, David Hoitink, conceded his client had a long history of drug use, which had led to his offences.
But he said, looking at the man's criminal history, the alleged violence had been out of character for his client.
Mr Hoitink argued bail conditions could mitigate any risks if the man failed to complete the rehabilitation program.
Justice Penfold said she felt uncomfortable second guessing the parole board, but information before the court made it appear board members had received less information than she would expect.
She asked the prosecution and defence to collect additional information from the rehabilitation centre before she could make her decision.
The man later withdrew his bail application and is expected to make another bid at a later date.
