Chief Executive, Department of Corrections v King

[2018] NZHC 656

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2017-409-126 [2018] NZHC 656

BETWEEN

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Applicant

AND

LAISON REIHANA KING

Respondent

Hearing:

11 April 2018

Appearances:

P A Currie for Applicant

M Starling for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 April 2018

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J (REASONS FOR ORDERS)

[1]                 This  judgment  records  the  orders  that  were  made  in   open  court  on    11 April 2018.

Orders

[2]Laison Reihana King is ordered subject to:

(1)An Extended Supervision Order (“ESO”) for a period of 10 years pursuant to s 107F of the Parole Act 2002 (“the Act”).

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v KING [2018] NZHC 656 [12 April 2018]

(2)To Intensive Monitoring pursuant to s 107IAB of the Act.

(3)Each of these Orders are to take effect from Mr King’s statutory release date.

(4)Interim special conditions are ordered pursuant to s 1071A of the Act in terms of those put before the Court, the Schedule to this judgment.

Comment

[3]                 These Orders were made with Mr King’s consent, advised by Mr Starling who is known to the Court as an highly experienced counsel in this area of the law.

[4]                 I was satisfied on the evidence before the Court and the submissions of the Chief Executive’s counsel Ms Currie, and Mr Starling, and informal advice given the Court by Ms Head, the health assessor (registered clinical psychologist), that the Orders sought are warranted.

[5]                 In particular, I am satisfied that under s 107I(5) of the Act the minimum period required for the safety of the community is 10 years, given the level of risk posed by Mr King, the seriousness of harm which might be caused to victims, and the likely duration of the risk. I understand from Mr Starling that intensive monitoring is only sought for those cases where the risk is of this magnitude and duration.

[6]                 Ms Head explained that the decision as to the duration of an Order is not made by her, but by a Panel.

[7]                 An aspect of the application which struck me as significant was the intensity of Mr King’s sexual drive, desire or urge, exhibited by conduct while in the highly structured and focused prison treatment environment, where the risk of detection is very high.

[8]                 Mr King’s victims are in a sense random, associated with his other offending and his coming across people in their homes, so that his victims are not “targeted” by

age, gender or otherwise, in the way that is more commonly understood. This makes his treatment more complex.

[9]                 Mr King clearly does accept responsibility for his offending. I think there is real merit in the matters put to me by Mr Starling and Ms Head, that there is a distinction to be drawn between those in his or a similar position who regard themselves as “bad”, or “deficient or flawed” in some way, as an explanation for their actions and leave it at that as opposed to those who regard themselves as inherently “good” persons who do “bad things”, as Mr Starling put it.

[10]              Self-description as “bad” is not helpful to explain their actions, as it may obviate their perceived need, and the opportunity for rehabilitation and productive engagement with the resources available under Orders such as those now made.

Disposition

[11]              I am satisfied that there is a high risk that Mr King would engage in other serious sexual offending within 10 years of release so as to warrant the Orders made, but based on what I have read and heard, I advised Mr King that he is clearly someone who has a real prospect of avoiding repeated imprisonment, if he engages fully with all that treatment and help which is available to him under the Orders made, and is otherwise compliant.

[12]This judgment records the reasons and some background to the Orders made.

………………………………………………..

Nicholas Davidson J

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly, Christchurch M Starling, Barrister, Christchurch

SCHEDULE

11. Not to undertake or start any employment, either paid or voluntary, without the prior approval of the probation officer.

12.  You must notify your probation officer before commencing any intimate relationship.

13.  To engage in reintegration activities provided by an approved provider to the satisfaction of the approved provider and the Probation Officer.

14.  You are not to have contact or otherwise associate with the victim(s) of your offending, directly or indirectly, unless you have the prior written consent of your Probation Officer.