Violent thug and long-term criminal Matthew Timothy Bain refused parole following Supreme Court review

A criminal who viciously bashed a train passenger has lost a bid for release after claiming he was treated unfairly by prison authorities and the Parole Board.

An “aggrieved” criminal with a lengthy record of violent crimes has lost his Supreme Court bid to be released on parole after being jailed for an unprovoked bashing on a train.

Matthew Timothy Bain, 34, has become the second prisoner in as many weeks to have the state’s highest court reject their application to be released on parole.

He was among seven prisoners to have launched judicial reviews of decisions made by the Parole Board this year, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend the cases in the Supreme Court.

Bain is serving a five year and three month sentence for numerous offences including aggravated intentionally causing harm, theft, serious criminal trespass, assault and disorderly behaviour.

The charges relate to the unprovoked bashing of a man on a train, another assault at a shopping centre, and several house break-ins.

A non-parole period of three years and three months was imposed on Bain, who was rated a “high risk” of further violent offending in a report from December 2018.

The Parole Board decided it would not interview Bain and make a decision on his release until he had completed a violence prevention program.

Bain’s legal team argued that despite completing several other courses and making repeated requests, he was denied access to the 10-month program.

He has now commenced the program, but won’t complete it until May 2021, less than a year before his main sentence will finish and 15 months after he became eligible for parole.

Bain challenged the Parole Board’s decision to put off any decision on release until after the program was completed.

On Friday, Supreme Court Justice Tim Stanley dismissed all three grounds of judicial review put forward by Bain’s legal team.

If successful, Bain’s application for parole would have returned to the Board for a final decision.

Supreme Court Justice Tim Stanley refused Matthew Timothy Bain’s bid to be released on parole. Picture: Dylan Coker

“(Bain) is aggrieved that his prospect of release on parole has been delayed by the failure of (Correctional Services) to arrange for him to undertake the violence prevention program during his non-parole period,” Justice Stanley said.

“He submits that this was not his fault and accordingly is unfair.

“In this case it is relevant that the applicant had not completed a program which the Board considered was necessary for the protection of community safety.”

Justice Stanley concluded that Bain was not entitled to an opportunity to respond to the Board’s decision to defer his application.

He also held that the decision to refuse parole until the course had been completed was not “irrational or unreasonable”.

“(Bain) has a history of violent offending, parole breaches and cancellations,” Justice Stanley said.

Other prisoners to launch reviews in the Supreme Court include convicted “black widow’’ ­killer Patricia Byers and violent serial bank robber and escapee Anthony John Smith.

On November 27, Supreme Court Justice Sam Doyle refused a similar application for release by Andrew Timothy Agius, who is serving 18 years for six counts of rape while masquerading as a taxi driver.

SA armed robber prison escapee Anthony John Smith at Radisson Plaza Hotel. Smith is among seven prisoners this year to ask for judicial review of a decision to refuse them bail.

Murderer Patricia Margaret Byers is among seven prisoners this year to ask for judicial review of a decision to refuse them bail.

Serial rapist Andrew Timothy Agius had his bid for parole rejected after the Supreme Court approved the way the Parole Board handled his request for freedom.

The applications have sparked concerns within the Parole Board and Correctional Services over the rise in the number of reviews, which had been a rarity until this year.

Each judicial review costs about $50,000, comprising Legal Aid payments to the prisoner’s lawyers, Crown Law solicitor fees and Supreme Court sitting time.

Correctional Services chief executive officer David Brown told The Advertiser this month that “people who might be legitimate candidates for parole” could have their applications delayed because of the additional workload the judicial reviews are causing.