Biddle v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2015] NZHC 1788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI-2015-483-16 [2015] NZHC 1788

BETWEEN

ADAM JAMES HEREMANA BIDDLE

Appellant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing:	30 July 2015
Counsel:	S J Ross for Appellant H C Mallalieu for Respondent
Judgment:	31 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

[1]      The appellant, Adam Biddle, is subject to a 10 year extended supervision order made against him in the Hamilton High Court on 12 April 2006.  That order came into force on 9 July 2006, and therefore expires on 9 July 2016.

[2]      Mr Biddle now applies for the cancellation of that extended supervision order pursuant to s 107IAA of the Parole Act 2002.  He does so on the basis that he no longer  poses  a  high  risk  of  committing  a  relevant  sexual  offence  within  the remaining term of the order.  I heard Mr Biddle’s application yesterday.  I granted it, and made an order cancelling his extended supervision order on the basis applied for. I said I would provide a brief written judgment confirming that decision.   I now do so.

[3]      Mr Biddle’s most recent conviction for sexual offending was entered 18 years ago.  Mr Biddle spent approximately nine of those years in prison.  Mr Biddle has

been  subject  to  strict  community probation  oversight  since his  release  in  2006.

BIDDLE v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZHC 1788 [31

July 2015]

Mr Biddle is motivated to apply for the cancellation of the extended supervision order partially from a desire to reside with his partner and her eight year old son.

[4]      I may only grant Mr Biddle’s application if I am satisfied, on the basis of the matters referred to in s 107IAA(1) of the Parole Act that, as Mr Biddle states in his application is the case, he no longer poses a high risk of committing a relevant sexual offence between now and 9 July 2016.

[5]      In  support  of  his  application,  Mr  Biddle  has  filed  an  In  Confidence Psychological ES Health Assessment Report, prepared by a registered clinical psychologist and addressed to the Department of Corrections.

[6]      In terms of the matters referred to in s 107IAA that report concludes:

(a)      That it is not deemed that Mr Biddle has an intense drive, desire, or urge to commit a relevant sexual offence (s 107IAA(1)(a)).

(b)That whilst Mr Biddle historically demonstrated a clear predilection and proclivity towards both child and adult sexual offending, there had not been any evidence of that since he had offended at the age of

24 (s 107IAA(1)(b)).

(c)      That his 13 breaches of his extended supervision order demonstrated a difficulty with self-regulating his behaviour in general, as opposed to difficulty controlling his sexual impulses (s 107IAA(1)(c)).

(d)That he had accepted responsibility for the majority of his sexual offending and expressed remorse for that offending and that he has developed an appreciation of the impact of his sexual abuse on children. The report did, however, note that Mr Biddle – in contrast to the position recorded in earlier treatment reports, said he had limited recall of one of his episodes of sexual offending, which he attributed to alcohol abuse (s 107IAA(1)(c)).

[7]      More generally the report concludes:

34       Mr Biddle is assessed at medium-low risk of engaging in relevant sexual offending involving sexual assault within 10 years.  He has sexually offended against two female victims who were pre-pubescent at the onset of the offending.  He has a history of sexual preoccupation and has previously demonstrated a clear predilection and proclivity for sexual offending against children spanning approximately 10 years.  However Mr Biddle has resided in  the  community  for  9  years  with  no  evidence  of  sexual  offending. Although he has incurred a number of breaches, these are more consistent with poor cooperation with supervision rather than offence paralleling behaviours.  He has engaged in an intensive treatment programme for child sex offenders as well as a significant number of individual psychological treatment sessions in the community.  Overall he was described as making positive change with evidence of behavioural change following his most recent treatment (2013).

[8]      I also note that Mr Biddle’s ES Health Assessment Report records some

28 sessions  with  a  Department  of  Corrections  psychologist  in  the  community

between May 2010 and February 2013.  Mr Biddle’s final treatment report (4 March

2013) recorded that he was living a settled lifestyle in which breaching his extended supervision order conditions appeared unlikely.   Moreover, Mr Biddle has not breached those conditions since completing that treatment.

[9]      The Department of Corrections does not oppose Mr Biddle’s application. Mr Mallalieu  confirmed  I  could  infer  from  that  the  Department  considered  a discharge was appropriate.

[10]     On the basis of the report provided to me, and the fact that the Department of Corrections does not oppose the cancellation of Mr Biddle’s extended supervision order, I was satisfied that Mr Biddle no longer poses a high risk of committing a relevant sexual offence within the remaining term of the order and I cancelled that

order accordingly.

Clifford J

Solicitors:

Stephen Ross and Raukawa Simon, Whanganui for Appellant

Crown Solicitor, Whanganui for Respondent