Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Brown

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-409-124 [2016] NZHC 1038

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

v

SAMUEL WILLIAM BROWN

Hearing: 27 April 2016

Appearances:

P A Currie for the Applicant
J Lucas and R Wood for the Respondent

Judgment:

19 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J (Reasons for Judgment to follow)

[1] This is the formal judgment of the court delivered on the application for an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) being imposed on the respondent, Samuel William Brown, pursuant to s 107F of the Parole Act 2002 (the Act).

[2] The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections has applied for an ESO for a term of 10 years. An application has also been made pursuant to s 107IAB of the Act for Intensive Monitoring to be imposed.

[3] Mr Brown is currently subject to an ESO which will terminate on the making of a new ESO.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v BROWN [2016] NZHC 1038 [19 May 2016]

[4] The Court Orders that a new ESO should apply to you Mr Brown, and I fix

10 years as the term of the Order. The Order takes effect as of today, the

19 May 2016.

[5] Interim special conditions will apply under s 107IA of the Act. The special conditions are attached to this Judgment. I impose these special conditions and an Intensive Monitoring condition on an interim basis until such time as the Parole Board convenes and imposes that condition along with any other special conditions it deems necessary under s 107K of the Act.

[6] I make a further Order requiring the Parole Board to impose an Intensive Monitoring condition on you, Mr Brown. The duration of this special condition is in total to be the statutory maximum, 12 months.

[7] The standard conditions set out in s 107JA of the Act apply throughout the term of the ESO, except during the 12 month period when you are subject to Intensive Monitoring.

[8] You will be provided with a notice of these conditions Mr Brown.

[9] The Reasons for Judgment will follow to reflect the evidential basis upon which the ESO, the interim special conditions, and the interim Intensive Monitoring condition are imposed.

[10] That is the formal judgment of the court which takes effect as of now.

…………………………………………….

Nicholas Davidson J

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Christchurch
Raymond Donnelly & Co (Crown Solicitor’s Office), Christchurch

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections applied for an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) against Samuel William Brown, who was already under an ESO set to expire. The applicant sought a new ESO for a term of ten years, along with an application for Intensive Monitoring to be imposed. The case was heard on 27 April 2016, with P A Currie representing the applicant and J Lucas and R Wood representing the respondent. The formal judgment was delivered by Justice Nicholas Davidson on 19 May 2016.

The primary legal issue for the Court was whether the conditions for imposing a new ESO and Intensive Monitoring on Mr Brown were satisfied under the Parole Act 2002. The Court needed to determine if the evidence presented supported the imposition of these orders and conditions for the proposed duration. The decision hinged on assessing the risk Mr Brown posed to the public and the likelihood of his reoffending if not subject to extended supervision and monitoring.

Justice Nicholas Davidson concluded that the evidence supported the imposition of a new ESO for a term of ten years, along with interim special conditions and an interim Intensive Monitoring condition. The Court fixed the start date of the new ESO as 19 May 2016. The special conditions and Intensive Monitoring were to be imposed on an interim basis until the Parole Board convened to impose these conditions more formally. The Court also mandated the Parole Board to impose an Intensive Monitoring condition on Mr Brown, with the total duration of this condition set at the statutory maximum of 12 months. The standard conditions under section 107JA of the Act would apply throughout the term of the ESO, except during the 12-month Intensive Monitoring period.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	27 April 2016
Appearances:	P A Currie for the Applicant J Lucas and R Wood for the Respondent
Judgment:	19 May 2016