Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Fowles
[2025] NZHC 1898
•11 July 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE
CRI-2025-454-19
[2025] NZHC 1898
BETWEEN THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
ApplicantAND
ANTHONY MICHAEL FOWLES
Respondent
Hearing: 9 July 2025 (and joint memorandum of counsel dated 10 July 2025) Appearances:
K S Barber for Applicant O S Winter for Respondent
Judgment:
11 July 2025
JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J
[1] The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (the Department) applies for an interim supervision order (ISO) with special conditions in respect of Anthony Fowles.
[2] Mr Fowles was not granted parole but was released on 13 January 2025 after serving his full sentence of five years’ imprisonment for charges which include violent offending. The Department has also made an application for an extended supervision order (ESO) for a period of 10 years together with intensive monitoring for a period of 12 months.
[3] The Department submits that an ISO may be made on the grounds that a health assessment report can satisfy the Court, on a provisional basis, that the statutory criteria for an ESO are made out. The Department seeks a special condition that
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v FOWLES [2025] NZHC 1898 [11 July 2025]
Mr Fowles reside at Te Korowai, a residential facility in the grounds of Rimutaka Prison, under a 12-month intensive monitoring condition.
[4] Mr Fowles opposes the imposition of an ISO and an ESO. Counsel for Mr Fowles, Mr Winter, submits that the threshold for making an ISO is not met and an ISO is unnecessary as Mr Fowles has been making good rehabilitative progress in the community and he does not need to be placed in a more restrictive environment. Mr Winter submits that if the Court concludes the threshold for an ISO is met, conditions other than those proposed by the Department would be appropriate.
[5] The standard and special release conditions to which Mr Fowles is presently subject expire on 12 July 2025 so the Department’s application must be determined urgently.
The application
[6] The Department makes its application in reliance on the report from a Health Assessor dated 2 April 2025 and an affidavit from a Probation Officer.
[7] As noted, Mr Fowles opposes the application and has filed an affidavit from Ms Louise Hume in support. Ms Hume is a Whānau Resilience Kaimarutau at Best Care Whakapai Hauora (Best Care). Best Care is a general practice and also provides wrap-around support services to assist whānau on their journey towards stability and wellbeing. Attached to Ms Hume’s affidavit is an initial report from Ms Hume about Mr Fowles’ situation, together with other material from those involved with Mr Fowles’ rehabilitation and letters of support from his partner and members of his family.
[8] A one-hour hearing took place on 9 July 2025. At that hearing I indicated I was inclined to make an ISO and invited counsel to confer and then advise the Court as to whether special conditions might be agreed.
[9] Counsel provided a joint memorandum attaching a list of special conditions which indicates remaining disagreement between the parties as to special conditions. The position is that, at a high level, the Department continues to seek an order that
Mr Fowles is to reside at Te Korowai under an intensive monitoring condition and says that if the Court was to order that Mr Fowles could remain at his current Palmerston North address, the Department seeks that he be subject to full residential restrictions at all times unless he has prior written approval from a Probation Officer. Mr Fowles opposes the restrictive conditions proposed.
Legal principles on an ISO application
[10] There is no dispute between the parties as to the relevant legal principles in relation to ISOs.
[11] ISOs are a mechanism for the Court to impose supervision for an interim period when an offender is released from detention before an application for an ESO is finally determined. The Court may make an ISO under s 107FA of the Parole Act 2002.
[12] Under s 107I(1) of the Parole Act the purpose of an ESO is “to protect members of the community from those who, following receipt of a determinate sentence, pose a real and ongoing risk of committing serious sexual or violent offences”. This similarly underpins the purpose of an ISO.
[13]Under s 107I(2), the Court may make an ESO if satisfied, relevantly, that:
(a)the offender has, or has had, a pervasive pattern of serious sexual or violent offending; and
(b)either or both of the following apply:
(i)there is a high risk that the offender will in future commit a relevant sexual offence:
(ii)there is a very high risk that the offender will in future commit a relevant violent offence.
[14] Section 107IAA(2) sets outs the matters the Court must be satisfied of before determining there is a high risk under s 107I(2)(b)(ii):
(2)A court may determine that there is a very high risk that an eligible offender will commit a relevant violent offence only if it is satisfied that the offender—
(a)has a severe disturbance in behavioural functioning established by evidence of each of the following characteristics:
(i)intense drive, desires, or urges to commit acts of violence; and
(ii)extreme aggressive volatility; and
(iii)persistent harbouring of vengeful intentions towards 1 or more other persons; and
(b)either—
(i)displays behavioural evidence of clear and long-term planning of serious violent offences to meet a premeditated goal; or
(ii)has limited self-regulatory capacity; and
(c)displays an absence of understanding for or concern about the impact of his or her violence on actual or potential victims.
[15] Within that statutory framework, the Court of Appeal has established a three-step process to determine whether the imposition of an ESO on an eligible offender is appropriate:1
(a)the Court must first determine whether the offender has, or has had, a pervasive pattern of serious sexual or violent offending;
(b)the Court must make specific findings as to whether the offender meets the qualifying criteria set out in s 107IAA; and
(c)if [the s 107IAA] criteria are met the Court must make a determination about the risk of the offender committing a relevant sexual or violent offence.
[16] While s 107FA does not prescribe a particular test for the granting of an ISO, this Court has held that the test is whether “albeit on a provisional basis and often on untested evidence, that the statutory criteria for an ESO are made out.”2
1 Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Alinizi [2016] NZCA 468 at [13].
2 Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Ihimaera [2017] NZHC 2228 at [14]. The approach in Ihimaera has been followed by this Court in Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Turi [2021] NZHC 1429 at [10]; Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Gray [2021] NZHC 2364 at [17]; Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Anae [2022] NZHC 1753 at [8]; and Department of Corrections v Rawiri [2023] NZHC 2943 at [22].
[17] The discretion to impose an ISO must also be exercised consistently with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.3
[18] Section 107FA(3) of the Parole Act empowers the Court to impose any standard conditions under s 107JA, or special conditions that the Parole Board may impose under an extended supervision order pursuant to s 107K. Under s 107K the Parole Board may only impose special conditions for the following purposes set out in s 15(2):
A special condition must not be imposed unless it is designed to—
(a)reduce the risk of reoffending by the offender; or
(b)facilitate or promote the rehabilitation and reintegration of the offender; or
(c)provide for the reasonable concerns of victims of the offender; or
(d)comply, in the case of an offender subject to an extended supervision order, with an order of the court, made under section 107IAC, to impose an intensive monitoring condition.
[19] The courts have recognised that there must be a nexus between the perceived risk posed by the offender and the effectiveness of a proposed condition.4 The conditions should be the least restrictive conditions necessary to adequately mitigate the risk of future offending until the ESO hearing.5 To warrant the significantly more onerous conditions of an ISO, the risk posed by the offender should not be adequately managed by way of release conditions.6
[20] The Court may receive and take into account any evidence or information it thinks fit for determining the application, regardless of whether it would be formally admissible.7
3 Department of Corrections v Thorpe [2017] NZHC 2559 at [14].
4 Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Martin [2016] NZHC 275 at [49].
5 Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Turi, above n 2, at [18].
6 Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Popata [2017] NZHC 1408 at [13]–[19].
7 Parole Act 2002, s 107H.
Background
[21] Mr Fowles’ history of violent offending began in 2010 when he was 15 years’ old. I do not set it out here in detail.
[22] Mr Fowles’ index violent offending occurred over a three-day period from 31 December 2019 to 2 January 2020. He was sentenced in the Rotorua District Court on 27 August 2020 to five years’ imprisonment.8 The 27 charges included assault with intent to rob (axe) and two offences of aggravated injury. The offending occurred while Mr Fowles was using methamphetamine heavily and involved Mr Fowles ramming police cars at high speed, causing significant physical injuries to two police officers, threatening another driver with an axe to steal his car and advancing towards police waving an axe before he returned to his vehicle and held the blade of the axe to his co-offender’s throat and shouting at the police to shoot him.
[23] Within a matter of months following the index offending, Mr Fowles reoffended violently, punching and kicking another prisoner in the face. He was sentenced in the Palmerston North District Court on 29 October 2020 to six months’ imprisonment on a charge of assault with intent to injure.
[24] In January 2025, the Parole Board released Mr Fowles to live with his partner at an address approved by the Department. He was released on standard and special conditions for six months and on electronically monitored curfew for two months.
[25] The Department says that since Mr Fowles’ release from prison certain events of significant concern have occurred. The Department refers to reports of intimate partner violence in February 2025. Police (and the Armed Offenders Squad on one occasion) were called to the address where Mr Fowles was living with his partner but matters were de-escalated, and no charges were laid. In April 2025, Mr Fowles experienced a deterioration of his mental health, with reported feelings of suicidal thoughts and frequent violent/homicidal ideation towards his partner, there is an allegation he had a gun, and there was a suicide attempt. Mr Fowles was voluntarily admitted to the mental health ward at Palmerston North Hospital for a short time.
8 R v Fowles [2020] NZDC 17443.
[26] Mr Fowles strongly contests the Department’s interpretation of the events that have occurred since his release from prison and its assessment of his current position. While accepting that there have been incidents, the material provided from his partner and Ms Hume says that the Department’s description of the events is both inaccurate in part and certainly incomplete. They provide detailed descriptions of the events in which they were involved. For example, as Mr Winter submits, it is noted that both the February events were able to be navigated without any recourse to violence by Mr Fowles. It is also said that when an argument ensued between Mr Fowles and his partner in April, he decided to leave the address in order to remove himself from the situation, a strategy taught at Men Against Violence programmes. When his mental health worsened, he sought help. Although Mr Fowles accepts he made a suicide attempt, he says this was in Wellington and not Palmerston North, and while he discussed thoughts of violence toward his partner, none were acted on.
[27] On 5 May 2025, the Department applied to the Parole Board to vary Mr Fowles’ special release conditions in light of the recent events (particularly those in April). There was a hearing before the Parole Board on 29 May 2025. The Department confirmed it would be applying for an ESO. Mr Fowles attended the hearing with supporters. He told the Parole Board his mental health had stabilised, he was on medication and had good support. The Board acknowledged these developments but referred to a health assessment report dated 1 November 2024 (for which Mr Fowles had declined to be interviewed) that assessed Mr Fowles as at high risk of violent and general re-offending. It also noted information from the Department that a more recent health assessment report had been completed which supported the making of an ESO (although this report was not available to the Board). The Parole Board made the amendments to the special conditions sought by the Department, as it was satisfied that a whereabouts condition was designed to reduce the risk of violent offending against Mr Fowles’ partner and her children9 and electronic monitoring was necessary to deter Mr Fowles from breaching that condition and to monitor his compliance with that condition.
9 The whereabouts condition prohibits Mr Fowles from entering Horowhenua. Mr Fowles presently resides in Palmerston North.
[28] The Department says Mr Fowles has been convicted and sentenced to come up if called upon for two breaches of his release conditions and was next due to appear on a further breach of conditions together with resentencing on the previous breaches on 10 July 2025 in the Palmerston North District Court. The current breach relates to Mr Fowles’ non-compliance with his conditions and failing to report to Te Korowai Main Reporting Centre. No further information is available to me about the outcome of this sentencing.
[29] As already noted, the Department has also filed an application for an ESO alongside the present application for an ISO and intensive monitoring condition.
The Health Assessor’s Report
[30] The Department has filed a health assessment report dated 2 April 2025 alongside its application (the Report). Gahan Joughin, a clinical psychologist, met with and assessed Mr Fowles in late February 2025. In the Report, Mr Joughin reached the following conclusions:
74Mr Fowles is a 30-year-old man who was released from prison on 13 January 2025. He has maintained compliance with his sentence conditions in general terms, with one breach for driving a motor vehicle whilst unlicensed. Police have been called to Mr Fowles’ address on two occasions to date; most recently in the context of a neighbour report of intimate partner violence (that was not evidenced) during which Mr Fowles threatened Police to the extent that the Armed Offender’s Squad was called. This situation was subsequently de-escalated without charges being laid.
75Mr Fowles’ brief period in the community is not sufficient to alter the conclusions of the current report, which have considered Mr Fowles’ lifetime functioning. From a very young age Mr Fowles has engaged in violent behaviour on a consistent basis. His violence has occurred across contexts and has involved varied victim types. Mr Fowles has made conscious decisions to remain a senior member of a highly antisocial and violence-supportive peer group, to cease multiple interventions offered to him, and to utilise substances rather than developing prosocial alternative coping strategies covered in DTP programmes.
76Mr Fowles is assessed as posing a very high risk of further relevant violent offending. He is considered to demonstrate an intense urge / drive / desire for violence and to display extreme aggressive volatility. There is very limited evidence of effective self-regulation in a general sense, and no evidence indicative of self-regulatory capacity regarding violence. Mr Fowles demonstrates vengeful intentions and
long-term plans for violence that are likely to be activated under predictable circumstances. By his own admission Mr Fowles lacks any level of meaningful understanding, concern or empathy for the victims of his violent offending, and his intention to remain a senior gang figure indicates a continued disregard for the rights of others to safety and security, and a willingness to continue to place potential victims at risk in the assessor’s opinion.
77Whilst Mr Fowles claims to be strongly motivated to care for and support his new family system – and demonstrates this care and concern for them – it is of considerable concern that he has also maintained his commitment to his gang and is prepared to engage in serious violence under a series of circumstances that in the assessor’s opinion are very likely to re-occur. Mr Fowles is encouraged to carefully consider the fact that he has the capability to choose to focus on one of these important aspects of his life and distance himself from the other at any time, should he elect to do so.
78The assessor notes for clarity that should an ESO be applied for and granted, relevant legislation contains a condition that individuals under an ESO must have no unsupervised contact with those aged under 16 years. In the assessor’s opinion the likelihood of Mr Fowles engaging in violence specifically directed at his partner’s children (all of whom are under 16) is notably lower than his risk of violence in other contexts (in particular, the gang context). Balancing this, and as was discussed with Mr Fowles during the current assessment, Mr Fowles’ gang related discussions, significant gang tattoos that cover the entirety of his body, and intention to continue to remain gang-affiliated, will naturally mean that his partner’s children are repeatedly exposed to this highly antisocial peer group and the influences inherent in this. It is hoped that Mr Fowles, his partner and her children can be supported to ensure that these antisocial influences are minimised if at all possible. It is also noted that Mr Fowles has clearly and repeatedly communicated to professionals that his partner and her children are his primary protective factor and source of motivation. Should he be required to live apart from them, his risk of gravitation back to heavy substance use, increased antisocial peer contact and potential serious offending behaviour would be considered elevated.
79For completeness, it is the assessor’s opinion that the imposition of an ESO will not meaningfully influence Mr Fowles’ violent behaviour. He has consistently demonstrated a willingness to engage in violence when the consequences of this behaviour are abundantly clear, such as during periods of incarceration. He has also freely acknowledged that his violent behaviour is not influenced by external factors of any form. The presence of an ESO – if applied for and granted – may result in further violence (or general offending behaviour) being detected more rapidly than would be the case without such external oversight.
The ISO
[31] The Department relies on Mr Fowles’ offending history and the Report to satisfy the Court, on a provisional basis, that the statutory criteria for making an ISO are established.
[32] Mr Fowles disagrees, relying on the more recent information he has provided, being Ms Hume’s affidavit and its attached letters and reports, casting a different light on recent events and explaining the rehabilitative progress Mr Fowles has made. The material provided states that Mr Fowles is highly motivated by his role as a father and the deep connection he shares with his partner who is not involved in the anti-social networks he once associated with. It states that Mr Fowles is making real, measurable progress and showing a lasting commitment to real change. Mr Winter submits that no pervasive pattern of serious violent offending is established, as Mr Fowles’ last violent offending was in December 2023 and the events that occurred from February to April 2025 are not offending. Mr Winter acknowledges that while Mr Fowles is not “the finished article” in terms of risk management and some risk is ongoing, each of the s 107IAA(2) criteria are not established and this is demonstrated by Mr Fowles’ recent responses to the incidents that have occurred.
[33] In the time available to determine the present application, it is not possible for the Court to resolve the factual disputes that clearly exist over the events that have occurred since Mr Fowles’ release from prison or his rehabilitative progress. I acknowledge Mr Fowles’ position is that the Report is out of date and that he has moved on considerably in terms of his rehabilitative intentions and actions. There has not been an opportunity for the Department or Mr Fowles to obtain a further psychological report. Accordingly, my assessment at this interim stage is constrained by the limited and untested nature of the evidence. These are matters to be fully addressed at the hearing of the ESO application.
[34] Nonetheless, it remains the case that the Report is of primary importance for the Court in deciding whether to make an ISO. The Report provides clear conclusions as to Mr Fowles’ high risk of further violent offending. The Report was prepared in April 2025 following meetings with Mr Fowles in late February 2025. While
acknowledging that Mr Fowles contests the factual basis for the Report and its conclusions, the fact is the Report is only four to five months’ old. Developments over the last six months do not mean I should disregard the Report, which makes an assessment of Mr Fowles over his lifetime.
[35] In terms of the statutory criteria, the Report concludes that Mr Fowles has, or has had, a pervasive pattern of serious violent offending.10 The Report addresses a pervasive pattern of previous violent offending history and unadjudicated violence. Mr Joughin concludes that from a very young age, Mr Fowles has engaged in violent behaviour on a consistent basis with his violence occurring across context and involving varied victim types. When considering the endurability of Mr Fowles’ risk, Mr Joughin opines that:
Mr Fowles’ risk of further relevant violent offending (and violence more broadly) is considered likely to endure over the long term. He is assessed as posing a very high risk of further violent offending behaviour, has engaged in violence frequently across his life span (since his very early childhood years), and his violence has persisted despite significant and escalating negative consequences (increasingly long prison terms)…
[36] I am satisfied, on a provisional basis, that Mr Fowles has, or has had, a pervasive pattern of serious violent offending.
[37] The Report specifically considers the criteria set out in s 107IAA(2), and ultimately Mr Joughin opines that:
Mr Fowles is assessed as posing a very high risk of further relevant violent offending. He is considered to demonstrate an intense urge/ drive/desire for violence and to display extreme aggressive volatility. There is very limited evidence of effective self-regulation in a general sense, and no evidence indicative of self-regulatory capacity regarding violence. Mr Fowles demonstrates vengeful intentions and long-term plans for violence that are likely to be activated under predictable circumstances. By his own admission Mr Fowles lacks any level of meaningful understanding, concern or empathy for the victims of his violent offending, and his intention to remain a senior gang figure indicates a continued disregard for the rights of others to safety and security, and a willingness to continue to place potential victims at risk in the assessor’s opinion.
10 Parole Act 2002, s 107I(2)(a).
[38] The conclusions in the Report support the conclusion that there is a very high risk of Mr Fowles committing a relevant violent offence. Mr Joughin’s opinion is based on Mr Fowles’ high ratings on the RoC*Rol and VRS-2,11 Mr Fowles’ history of violence across his lifespan, his unwillingness to engage in interventions and behaviourally implement risk management strategies and his stated intention to become further entrenched in his gang in the near future.
[39] Mr Joughin’s overall psychological assessment supports the following risk parameter statement:
Mr Fowles is estimated to fall into a category of individuals assessed as posing a very high risk of further violent offending behaviour. He is considered equally likely to engage in further relevant violent offending as he is non-relevant violent offending. Should Mr Fowles engage in further violence, this would most likely be directed toward fellow or rival gang members (in the context of gang kawa violations or intra-gang conflicts respectively), strangers (in the context of Mr Fowles wanting material goods, drugs or money from victims), custodial officers or Police officers (in the context of attempts to influence Mr Fowles). His potential for intimate partner violence is evident in his acknowledgement of past violence in the relationship context, though may be considered somewhat less likely. Should Mr Fowles violently re-offend this could easily involve the use of weapons, including firearms, thus the potential for fatal violence cannot be discounted. Further violent offending could take place in the community or prison contexts, and Mr Fowles’ acknowledgement that he would engage in further violence under a number of predictable (and likely) circumstances is of considerable concern.
[40] Given the conclusions in the Report, I am provisionally satisfied that Mr Fowles meets the conditions for the making of an ESO under s 107I(2), for the purposes of granting an ISO.
[41] I consider that an ISO should be made in relation to Mr Fowles. I turn to address the special conditions for the ISO sought by the Department.
Conditions of ISO and application for intensive monitoring
[42] Every offender on an ESO will be subject to standard conditions set out in s 107JA. Ms Barber, for the Department, explains that in many respects they are
11 RoC*Rol is an actuarial measure to assist in the prediction of an offender’s risk of imprisonment for serious general offending which may include violence. VRS-2 is the Violence Risk Scale – Second edition which assesses the probability of violent re-offending based on static and dynamic risk.
similar to the standard parole release conditions in s 14 of the Parole Act although there are some conditions which are stricter in several respects and recognises the specific risk that must be met, and managed, for an ESO to be imposed. The Court has a discretion when making an ISO to impose any of the standard conditions in s 107JA or special conditions under s 107K imposed under an ESO.
[43] The Department’s position is that the proposed intensive monitoring and special conditions are necessary to manage the very high risk of Mr Fowles reoffending against a range of people, including his partner, Police and members of the public. Ms Barber says that the special conditions relating specifically to electronic monitoring are essential to ensure compliance with the conditions of the ISO which are designed to provide supervision and therefore mitigate the high risk of Mr Fowles reoffending.
[44] The Department says that the three broad grounds that support intensive monitoring and the special conditions are:
(a)The real need for further time for Mr Fowles to embed positive and meaningful change in circumstances where he is assessed at a very high risk of committing serious violence in the community.
(b)An absence of consistent engagement by Mr Fowles with programmes or psychologists to assist with his treatment and risk mitigation.
(c)The recent escalation and deterioration in Mr Fowles’ circumstances following the April events.
[45] For these reasons, the Department maintains its position that Mr Fowles should reside at Te Korowai and cannot presently be appropriately managed in the community. The Department seeks either partial residential restrictions and intensive monitoring, or if the Court does not make an order for intensive monitoring, full residential restrictions. If the Court was to allow Mr Fowles to reside at his Palmerston North address, the Department seeks full residential restrictions.
[46] Mr Winter contends that Mr Fowles can remain at his address in Palmerston North under the conditions he proposes (including electronic monitoring and a curfew) and this would allow him to continue his employment and engagement with rehabilitation. Underpinning Mr Fowles’ position is his reliance on his present situation in terms of rehabilitative intentions, actions and support.
[47] Mr Fowles says that going to Te Korowai will return him to a prison-like environment that will place him with offenders who have contributed to his past issues, and he does not wish to be housed among them. He also says there is a distinct difference between what has been achieved by the Department while he was in a prison environment as opposed to those who have worked with him in the community since his release. Mr Fowles says such a placement is counterproductive and counterintuitive in terms of reducing his long-term risk, in light of what has been achieved in recent months. He says the Department’s proposal is in effect a postponement of an attempt to deal with his issues and will rather lead to the progress that has been made being lost. Mr Fowles notes he is employed, medicated and responding well to assistance from those around him, as well as working meaningfully to re-establishing his relationship with his partner and her children.
[48] I am mindful of the requirements for a nexus between the perceived risk posed by the offender and the effectiveness of a proposed condition and that any conditions must be the least restrictive necessary to adequately mitigate the risk of future offending until the ESO hearing. The Department accepts that there has been insufficient time to reduce the necessity of special conditions such as electronic monitoring, and the intensive monitoring and special conditions sought can be considered the least restrictive when balanced against the risk assessment.
[49] Once again, I rely on a provisional assessment of Mr Fowles’ risk in considering appropriate conditions. The assessment by the Health Assessor remains critical. I conclude that in the circumstances an order requiring Mr Fowles to reside at Te Korowai under an intensive monitoring condition is necessary to adequately mitigate the risk of his future offending pending the ESO hearing. I am not satisfied that allowing Mr Fowles to remain in the community under the conditions he proposes is
sufficient, nor with full residential restrictions. I agree with the Department that other conditions are also required.
Progress to the ESO hearing
[50] The summary circumstances in which the Department’s applications have been determined make it essential that the hearing of the application for an ESO take place as soon as possible.
[51] I am aware that the parties are shortly to confirm their availability for a hearing date in December 2025, and propose a timetable to hearing. An earlier hearing of the ESO application would be highly desirable, not least because it will best promote compliance with Mr Fowles’ rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
[52] I appreciate the likely reason for a more distant hearing date will be the ability to obtain further psychological reports. If the Department intends to obtain an updated report, which it clearly must, that should be filed and served by Friday 25 July 2025. The matter will then be placed in the list for review on a date shortly after, to be advised by the Registry. The timetable for the balance of the steps which must be taken before the hearing, including the opportunity for Mr Fowles to obtain his own psychological report, are to be the subject of an agreed timetable placed before the Duty Judge. The Court is to allocate a priority fixture for the ESO application in light of the timetable.
Result
[53] I grant the Department’s application for an ISO in relation to Mr Fowles on the following special conditions, alongside the standard conditions contained in s 107JA of the Parole Act 2002, which are to take effect from 12 July 2025, and which expire upon the final determination of the ESO application:
(a)To reside at an address approved in writing by a Probation Officer, and not move from that address unless you have the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.
(b)For twelve months, to be subject to intensive monitoring and to submit to being accompanied and monitored, for up to 24 hours a day, by an individual who has been approved, by a person authorised by the Chief Executive, to undertake person-to-person monitoring.
(c)To submit to electronic monitoring as directed by a Probation Officer in order to monitor your compliance with any conditions relating to your residential restrictions or whereabouts.
(d)To comply with the requirements of electronic monitoring and provide unimpeded access to your approved residence by a Probation Officer and/or representatives of the monitoring company for the purpose of maintaining the electronic monitoring equipment as directed by a Probation Officer.
(e)To comply with the requirements of partial residential restrictions and remain in the area defined by a Probation Officer at Te Korowai, between the hours of 8.00 pm and 8.00 am daily unless you leave the residence:
(i)to seek urgent medical or dental treatment;
(ii)to avoid or minimise a serious risk of death or injury to you or any other person;
(iii)for humanitarian reasons approved by a Probation Officer; or
(iv)with the prior written approval of a Probation Officer in order to:
1. comply with any special conditions;
2. seek or engage in employment; or
3. to attend training or other rehabilitative or reintegrative activities or programmes.
(f)Not to enter the area of Horowhenua, as defined in writing by a Probation Officer, unless you have the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.
(g)Not to possess, use, or consume alcohol, controlled drugs or psychoactive substances except controlled drugs prescribed for you by a health professional.
(h)To attend an alcohol and drug assessment, and attend, participate in and complete any treatment or counselling directed by a Probation Officer.
(i)To attend a psychological assessment and attend, participate in and complete any recommended treatment as directed by a Probation Officer.
(j)To attend, participate in and complete any other programme, treatment or counselling as directed by a Probation Officer.
(k)Not to drive a motor vehicle unless you are lawfully entitled to do so.
(l)To obtain the written approval of a Probation Officer before starting or changing your position and/or place of employment (including voluntary and unpaid work). To notify a Probation Officer if you leave your position of employment.
(m)Not to communicate or associate, directly or indirectly, with any person known to you to associate with any gang as defined by the Gangs Act 2024 unless you have the prior written approval of a probation officer.
(n)To disclose to a Probation Officer, at the earliest opportunity, details of any intimate relationship which commences, resumes or terminates.
[54] It is to be hoped that the Department will bear in mind the rehabilitation steps apparently taken by Mr Fowles to date.
McQueen J
Solicitors:
BVA The Practice, Palmerston North for Applicant
0
4
0