Sharon Denise Siermans, a 29-year-old mother, was murdered by Jason Dinsley in April 2013 while he was on parole. Dinsley had a long history of violent sexual offences and had tested positive to cannabis in March 2013, triggering a parole review. The Adult Parole Board scheduled a show-cause hearing for 8 April 2013. Dinsley killed Ms Siermans on 6 April 2013, two days before the hearing. The coroner found this death was preventable had the APB immediately cancelled Dinsley's parole on 28 March 2013 when notified of escalating risk. This case highlighted deficiencies in the Victorian parole risk assessment tool (VISAT), delays in offender rehabilitation programs, and the need for urgent response to escalating risk factors. Subsequent legislative and operational reforms have addressed many of these systemic issues.
AI-generated summary and tagging — may contain inaccuracies; refer to original finding for legal purposes.
offender on parole with violent sexual offence history
inadequate parole risk assessment tool (VISAT)
delay in response to escalating risk indicators
drug use while on parole
lack of stable accommodation
delay in offender rehabilitation program access
failure to immediately cancel parole despite escalating risk
Coroner's recommendations
No specific recommendations made as coroner noted that subsequent legislative and operational reforms to the Victorian Adult Parole System have sufficiently addressed the systemic issues identified in this case
This page reproduces or summarises information from publicly available findings published by Australian coroners' courts. Coronial is an independent educational resource and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of any coronial court or government body.
Content may be incomplete, reformatted, or summarised. All court orders for redaction and non-publication are respected; documents with technically defective redaction have been excluded from the database entirely. Always refer to the original court publication for the authoritative record.
Copyright in original materials remains with the relevant government jurisdiction. AI-generated summaries and tagging are for educational purposes only, may contain inaccuracies, and must not be treated as legal documents. We welcome feedback for correction —