Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v M

Case [2019] NZHC 3231


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-312

[2019] NZHC 3231

UNDER Section 107F of the Parole Act 2002

IN THE MATTER

of an application for an extended supervision order

BETWEEN

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Applicant

AND

M

Respondent

Hearing: 5 and 9 December 2019

Counsel:

BD Tantrum and NE Town for applicant CG Wright for respondent

Judgment:

9 December 2019


(ORAL) RESULTS JUDGMENT OF FITZGERALD J

[As to application for extended supervision order]


Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, Auckland

Public Defence Service, Auckland

Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v M [2019] NZHC 3231 [9 December 2019]

[1]The application for an ESO is declined.

[2]        My detailed reasons for declining the application will be provided in due course.

[3]        But in summary, I am not satisfied M displays either or both the characteristics set out in s 107IAA(d) of the Parole Act 2002 (Act) (concerning lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse; and/or an absence of understanding for or concern about the impact of the offending on actual or potential victims). I also have real doubts as to whether that characteristic set out at s 107IAA(a) (an intense drive, desire, or urge to commit a relevant sexual offence) is presently possessed by M, rather than enduring personality traits which might in due course lead to the s 107IAA(a) characteristic being possessed by him.

[4]        Given this, I cannot be satisfied there is a high risk that M will in future commit a relevant sexual offence, for the purposes of ss 107I(2) and 107IAA(1) of the Act.


Fitzgerald J

Details
AGLC
Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v M [2019] NZHC 3231
Case
[2019] NZHC 3231
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections has applied for an extended supervision order (ESO) in relation to the respondent, M, under section 107F of the Parole Act 2002. The application was heard over two days and the judgment was delivered orally on 9 December 2019 by Fitzgerald J. The key legal issues before the court were whether M displayed the characteristics specified in section 107IAA of the Act that would justify an ESO, and whether there was a high risk that M would commit a relevant sexual offence in the future.

Fitzgerald J found that M did not display the characteristics set out in section 107IAA(d) of the Act, concerning lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse, and/or an absence of understanding for or concern about the impact of the offending on actual or potential victims. The judge also had doubts as to whether M presently possessed the characteristic set out at section 107IAA(a) (an intense drive, desire, or urge to commit a relevant sexual offence), or whether the characteristic might only develop in the future. Given this, Fitzgerald J was not satisfied that there was a high risk that M would in future commit a relevant sexual offence, for the purposes of sections 107I(2) and 107IAA(1) of the Act. Therefore, the application for an ESO was declined. The detailed reasons for the decision will be provided in due course.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.