Chief Executive Department of Corrections v McIntosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-409-000038 [2015] NZHC 999

CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

v

LLOYD ALEXANDER MCINTOSH

Hearing: 12 May 2015

Appearances:

P A Currie for Applicant
M Starling and L M Drummond for Respondent

Judgment:

12 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] This is an application for a further extended supervision order under s 107 of the Parole Act 2002 in relation to the respondent.

[2] The respondent is currently subject to an extended supervision order which came into effect in 2005 and was due to expire on 29 April 2015. The filing of this application extended it to 11 June 2015.

[3] An order has also been sought for an intensive monitoring condition to be imposed for the first 12 months of the extended supervision order under s 107IAC of the Parole Act 2002.

[4] A health assessor’s report dated 23 February 2015 has been submitted in support of the extended supervision order application and the intensive monitoring
conditions. That report recognises that the respondent has, or has had, a pervasive

CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v MCINTOSH [2015] NZHC 999 [12 May 2015]

pattern of serious sexual offending, including against vulnerable victims and that there is a high risk that the respondent will in future commit a relevant sexual offence after he ceases to be an eligible offender.

[5] Counsel acting for the respondent has viewed the material filed and advised there is no opposition to either the 10 year extended supervision order or the intensive monitoring to accompany it for the first year. In fact, he notes that Mr McIntosh welcomes the order as a means to provide for continuity of his support and care at the Salisbury Street Foundation.

[6] In these circumstances I am satisfied that I am in a position to make the substantive orders sought and there is no need to make the interim supervision order which was sought as a precaution if the substantive orders were to take some time to deal with.

[7] Accordingly, I order that:

(a)
the new extended supervision order is made and is to commence on

11 June 2015;

(b)

the extended supervision order is to be made for a period of 10 years;

(c)

an order for intensive monitoring is made for the first 12 months of the extended supervision order;

(d)

pursuant to s 107L(2A), the current special conditions are to continue for a further three months or until the New Zealand Parole Board

imposes the new special conditions.

[8]

I si

mply note that it is recorded that the applicant will, within the three month

period, apply to the New Zealand Parole Board for the special conditions.

Solicitors:
Raymond Donnelly & Co., Christchurch
M Starling, Barrister, Christchurch

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chief Executive Department of Corrections v McIntosh, the applicant sought an extended supervision order for the respondent, Lloyd Alexander McIntosh, under the Parole Act 2002. McIntosh was already subject to an extended supervision order which was due to expire on 29 April 2015. The application was made to extend this order until 11 June 2015, and to impose an intensive monitoring condition for the first 12 months of the extended supervision order.

The legal issues before the court were whether the extended supervision order should be granted, and if so, for how long, and whether the intensive monitoring condition should be imposed. The court had to consider the risk of McIntosh committing a future sexual offence, based on the health assessor’s report, and McIntosh’s response to the application.

Dunningham J found that McIntosh had a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending, including against vulnerable victims, and that there was a high risk of re-offending. Counsel for McIntosh did not oppose the extended supervision order or the intensive monitoring condition, and in fact, McIntosh welcomed the order as it provided continuity of his support and care. The court was satisfied that it was in a position to make the substantive orders sought and did not need to make the interim supervision order. The court made the extended supervision order for a period of 10 years, commencing on 11 June 2015, and imposed an intensive monitoring condition for the first 12 months. The court also ordered that the current special conditions continue for a further three months or until the New Zealand Parole Board imposed new special conditions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	12 May 2015
Appearances:	P A Currie for Applicant M Starling and L M Drummond for Respondent
Judgment:	12 May 2015

(a)	the new extended supervision order is made and is to commence on 11 June 2015;
(b)	the extended supervision order is to be made for a period of 10 years;
(c)	an order for intensive monitoring is made for the first 12 months of the extended supervision order;
(d)	pursuant to s 107L(2A), the current special conditions are to continue for a further three months or until the New Zealand Parole Board
imposes the new special conditions.
[8]	I si	mply note that it is recorded that the applicant will, within the three month