Chief Executive Department of Corrections v Jeffries

[2015] NZHC 1086

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2009-063-732 [2015] NZHC 1086

BETWEEN

CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS Applicant

AND

ROBERT KEITH JEFFRIES Respondent

Hearing:	20 May 2015
Appearances:	O Klaassen for Applicant Defendant in person G Newell (appointed as counsel to assist the Court)
Judgment:	20 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for extended supervision order]

CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v JEFFRIES [2015] NZHC 1086 [20 May 2015]

[1]      On 6 October 2010, Mackenzie J sentenced Mr Jeffries to an effective term of five years imprisonment on 11 counts of unlawful sexual activity with young persons.1     Mr Jeffries’ statutory release date and sentence expiry date is 20 July

2015.

[2]      The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections ( the Chief Executive) considers that Mr Jeffries remains at high risk of reoffending in a sexual way following his release.  For that reason he has applied for an order under s 107F of the Parole Act 2002 requiring Mr Jeffries to be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of ten years.  This would require Mr Jeffries to remain subject to close oversight by the authorities for a period of ten years following his release.

[3]      The  Chief  Executive  has  served  the  application  on  Mr  Jeffries,  and  Mr Jeffries has received advice in relation to it from Mr Newell, counsel appointed to assist the Court.  Having received that advice, Mr Jeffries has indicated that he does not oppose the extended supervision order.  He leaves it for the Court to determine whether or not it is appropriate to make the order the Chief Executive seeks.

Background

[4]      Mr Jeffries’ offending involved four victims, all of whom were aged between four and eight years at the time of the offending.   Each was a relative or family friend.  The offending against the first victim occurred between 1986 and 1988, and involved a single incident that occurred when the victim and her parents had been visiting Mr Jeffries’ parents’ home.  It was arranged that Mr Jeffries would take her home at the end of the visit. When they got to her house, Mr Jeffries sexually abused the victim by licking her vagina and making her lick his penis.  He then made her masturbate him with her hand until he ejaculated.

[5]      The remaining three victims were children who were in Mr Jeffries’ care after they attended school or kindergarten.   Two were female and one was male.   The offending occurred over a considerable period of time between 1996 and 1998.  Mr

Jeffries would make the male victim engage in oral sex with him, and would also

1      R v Jeffries HC Wellington CRI-2009-063-732, 6 October 2010.

require him to masturbate Mr Jeffries with his hand.  Mr Jeffries performed oral sex on this victim, and also masturbated him with his hand.

[6]      The sexual offending in relation to the two young female victims involved the touching and digital penetration of the victims’ vagina and, in the case of one of the victims, Mr Jeffries also touched her vagina with his tongue.

[7]      Mr Jeffries was aged between 25 and 37 years when the offending occurred. Psychological reports at the time of sentencing recorded that he was of low intellectual functioning, and that this limitation had affected him throughout his life. His intellectual disabilities meant he had problems at school from a very early age, and these continued beyond childhood.  He had only been able to undertake limited forms of work, and for the most part had been in receipt of an Invalid’s Benefit.

[8]      Dealing with the issue of Mr Jeffries’ insight into his offending, Mackenzie J

observed:

[4]       You  are  said  by  the  probation  officer  now  to  accept  that  you committed the offences, although you have continued to maintain that you have no recollection of the offending.   This, with your limited intellectual functioning means that you do not display a high level of insight into your offending though you have expressed some remorse.  Screening tests did not identify any alcohol, drug, or gambling issues of concern.  The probation officer notes that intervention would be appropriate for you through the Te Piriti Special Treatment Unit programme for child sex offenders at Auckland prison.    That  includes  an  adapted  element  for  offenders  with  limited cognitive functioning.   You had expressed an interest in undertaking that programme and I consider that it is appropriate that the authorities should consider your position and your appropriateness for that or some other treatment.   Because of your emotional identification with young children, your lack of appreciation of your actions through your limited intellectual ability and the number and characteristics of your victims you are considered by the probation officer to be at moderate risk of reoffending.  Your counsel submits that the offending might have as much to do with your mental age as with propensity.  I find much force in that submission.

Decision

[9]      Nearly five years have now passed since Mr Jeffries was sentenced by Mackenzie J.  The Chief Executive has obtained two further reports from Dr Johan Rall, a registered psychologist.   These are dated 8 December 2014 and 11 March

2015 respectively.   The reports confirm that Mr Jeffries still lacks insight into his

offending, and that he remains at moderate to high risk of offending again in a sexual way following his release.  Issues of concern include the fact that he has no support network   within   the   community,   and   at   this   stage   has   no   accommodation arrangements in place for his release notwithstanding the fact that it is just two months away. The psychologist concludes:

Mr Jeffries is assessed as likely to commit further relevant sexual offences against pre-pubescent victims of either gender, with his victims likely to be known to him.  He has a limited ability to control his sexual impulses and is assessed  as  continuing  to  have  a  predilection  and  proclivity  to  sexual offences against pre-pubescent children.

[10]     The psychologist also observes that research suggests that the level of risk posed by individuals with Mr Jeffries’ attributes remains stable over an extended period of time.   Mr Jeffries’ offending history also indicates there could be considerable time gaps between offences.  The psychologist therefore recommends that any extended supervision order should be for a period of ten years.

[11]     Mr Jeffries is now just 53 years of age.   The risk factors identified by the psychologist, coupled with those contained in the reports prepared at the time of sentencing, demonstrate that he continues to present as a moderate to high risk of future sexual offending against young persons of either gender.  I therefore consider it is essential for the authorities to maintain close oversight over his activities upon his release.   I am also satisfied that such oversight should continue for a lengthy period.

Order

[12]     I make an extended supervision order under s 107F of the Parole Act 2002. The order shall remain in force for a period of ten years from his release date.  The

draft order tendered by counsel at the hearing may therefore be sealed.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Counsel:

G Newell, Auckland

Copy to:

Respondent