Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Wilkinson
[2025] NZHC 1848
•7 July 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE
CRI-2025-412-004 [2025] NZHC 1848
UNDER 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
STEPHEN EDRIC WILKINSON
Respondent
Hearing: 2 July 2025 Counsel:
C E R Power for Applicant
K S M Lawrence for Respondent
Judgment:
7 July 2025
JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J
Introduction
[1] Stephen Wilkinson is currently in custody serving a sentence of three years and 10 months’ imprisonment for sexual offending. I am informed his sentence expiry date and statutory release date is 21 July 2025, with his release conditions to end on 20 January 2026.
[2] The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (the Chief Executive) considers Mr Wilkinson poses a high risk in the short to medium term of further sexual offending. The Chief Executive has therefore asked the Court to make an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) under s 107I Parole Act 2002 (the Act).
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v WILKINSON [2025] NZHC 1848 [7
July 2025]
[3] Mr Wilkinson initially opposed the making of an ESO. He has since withdrawn his opposition to the ESO itself but, in response to the Chief Executive’s submission that the ESO should be of at least five years’ duration, submits the duration should be two years.
[4] Notwithstanding Mr Wilkinson’s non-opposition to the making of the ESO itself, it is necessary that the court first determine whether the grounds for an ESO are established and only then determine the appropriate duration.
The statutory regime
[5] An ESO of up to 10 years’ duration is provided for in Pt 1A of the Act for offenders who have been convicted of certain offences and assessed by a health assessor.
[6] The purpose of an ESO is to protect the public from offenders who, after serving a determinate sentence, pose a real and ongoing risk of committing serious sexual or violent offences.1 It does so by imposing a closely-monitored regime of supervision and management upon such persons. The threshold for making an ESO is high, reflecting the severe restrictions that it places on many aspects of the respondent’s life.2
[7]Section 107I(2) establishes the grounds on which a court may make an ESO:
(2)A sentencing court may make an extended supervision order if, following the hearing of an application made under section 107F, the court is satisfied, having considered the matters addressed in the health assessor’s report as set out in section 107F(2A), 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.
1 Parole Act 2002, s 107I(1); and R v Peta [2007] NZCA 28, [2007] 2 NZLR 627.
2 Holland v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 504 at [4].
[8] When assessing the criterion under s 107I(2)(b)(i), s 107IAA(1) provides a court may consider there is a high risk that the offender will in future commit a relevant sexual offence only if it is “satisfied”3 that the offender:
…
(a)displays an intense drive, desire, or urge to commit a relevant sexual offence; and
(b)has a predilection or proclivity for serious sexual offending; and
(c)has limited self-regulatory capacity; and
(d)displays either or both of the following:
(i)a lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse for past offending:
(ii)an absence of understanding for or concern about the impact of his or her sexual offending on actual or potential victims.
[9] The court, where it has decided to make an ESO, must then determine the duration of the order. Section 107I(5) requires the term to be the minimum period required for the purposes of the safety of the community in light of:
(a)the level of risk posed by the offender; and
(b)the seriousness of the harm that might be caused to victims; and
(c)the likely duration of the risk.
[10] Section 107M(1) provides that, after an ESO has been made, the Court may on the application of either the offender or the Chief Executive, cancel the ESO if satisfied the offender no longer poses a high risk of committing a relevant sexual offence.
[11] The Court of Appeal in Chisnall v Attorney-General held the ESO regime is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, as being a
3 In this context “satisfied” simply means the Court must exercise its judgment regarding the matters in issue. Neither party carries any burden or standard of proof; McDonnell v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2009] NZCA 352, (2008) 8 HRNZ 770 at [75].
double-punishment that amounts to an unjustified limitation of the right in s 26(2).4 The Court subsequently explained that “Strong justification” will, however, be required to exercise the discretion to impose an ESO, even where the statutory grounds under the (Parole) Act are established”.5
[12] Ms Lawrence, for Mr Wilkinson, submits that, just as “strong justification” is required for the imposition of an ESO at all, it follows there must also be a “strong justification” for the duration of the ESO. I accept that submission.
Mr Wilkinson’s relevant offending
[13] In terms of the definition of “relevant offence” under s 107B of the Act, Mr Wilkinson was in 2022 convicted (on his guilty plea) of offences in December 2020, namely indecent assault on a boy under 126 and of two charges of meeting a young person following sexual grooming.7 That led to his sentencing in the High Court as summarised above (at [1]).8
The health assessor’s report
[14] In sentencing Mr Wilkinson in July 2022, Eaton J, on a finely-balanced decision, refrained from imposing a sentence of preventive detention on Mr Wilkinson. The Judge referred to the five factors under s 87(4) Sentencing Act 2002, including the principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable to preventive detention if this provides adequate protection for society. In regard to that principle, the Judge recorded:
[65] That is the general principle that the law requires me to recognise a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if it provides adequate protection for society.
[66] When I consider that issue, I must take into account the possibility that on your release you could be made subject to an ESO. An ESO can be sought by Corrections on your release from prison if the authorities at that time consider you represent an ongoing risk to public safety. An ESO can last
4 Chisnall v Attorney-General [2022] NZCA 24; Chisnall v Attorney-General [2021] NZCA 616, [2021] 2 NZLR 484; affirmed in Attorney-General v Chisnall [2024] NZSC 178, [2024] 1 NZLR 768 only in relation to the detention-authorising aspects of the ESO regime.
5 R(CA586/2021) v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 225 at [53].
6 Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3).
7 Crimes Act 1961, s 131B.
8 R v Wilkinson [2022] NZHC 1774 [Sentencing Remarks] (footnotes omitted).
for up to 10 years and may greatly restrict a person’s liberty by imposing on them conditions designed to reduce the risk of reoffending and protecting and enhancing public safety. An ESO is not an “agreeable alternative” to preventive detention but it is a “potential safety valve” which shores up the principles that a finite sentence is preferable to preventive detention. Our courts have recognised that in finely balanced cases, the possibility of an ESO being imposed may tip the balance in favour of a finite sentence. The Court of Appeal has said that the availability of an ESO has the advantage of allowing the risk assessment to be made at the time the prisoner is to be released.
[67] The reports I have read confirm that Corrections have previously contemplated, but have not ever made an application for an ESO in your case.
[15] At Mr Wilkinson’s sentencing, Eaton J identified that Mr Wilkinson had a total of eight previous convictions for indecent acts or assaults committed against children.
As explained by Eaton J to Mr Wilkinson, the circumstances relating to those were:9
(a)In 2011, you were convicted and sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for two indecent acts and an aggravated assault on a 13-year-old boy committed in 1997. You pushed the boy into an alleyway, hit the victim over the head twice with a closed fist and threatened him. You masturbated him then forced him to masturbate you, before ejaculating onto the victim’s hand.
(b)You were also convicted at the same time for two indecent acts committed in late 2010, for which you received a cumulative term of nine months’ imprisonment. You were in a vehicle when you saw two boys aged six and seven years riding their bicycles. You pulled over, exposed your genitalia and masturbated in view of the young victims. A nine-year-old girl also observed you. The next week, you again pulled up alongside two boys riding their bikes, this time boys both aged 12. You exposed your genitalia and masturbated within view of the victims.
(c)In July 2016, you were convicted on two charges of indecent acts committed in March 2015 and May 2016 and sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment. On both occasions, you parked outside a bus stop where school-aged children were likely to be present. On the first occasion, you were in view of two boys, aged 11 and 12 years, and began masturbating while smiling at the victims. This occurred on up to 10 occasions within that month. The 2016 offending was in view of a number of male and female school students at the bus stop.
(d)Then in 2018, you were convicted of doing an indecent act and sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment. You stood on an exposed embankment at the beach and began masturbating while watching a boy aged approximately eight years who was playing in the sea.
(e)Most recently, you were convicted in June 2021 on a charge of indecently assaulting an eight-year-old boy in February of that year. You were sentenced to one year, one month and 14 days’
9 Sentencing Remarks, above n 8, at [30].
imprisonment and registered on the Child Sex Offender Register. On that occasion, you drove to a sports ground in Dunedin on a Saturday morning, being a location for children’s sports. You entered the bathroom, approached the victim who was alone and pulled his shorts down. A witness heard the boy’s cries and confronted you as you attempted to leave.
[16] The Chief Executive has submitted, pursuant to s 107A(a) of the Act, the report of Dr Heather Gordon, a registered clinical psychologist, dated 23 December 2024.
Pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending
[17] Through Ms Lawrence, Mr Wilkinson accepts that he has and has had a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending.
[18] I consider that concession responsible and inevitable. Beginning in 1997, when Mr Wilkinson was aged 29 and committed serious sexual offences against a 13 year old boy, there has been a pervasive pattern of similar offending against similarly aged boys and, more recently, even younger boys.
High risk of relevant sexual offence being committed in future
[19] To determine if there is a high risk Mr Wilkinson will in future commit a relevant sexual offence, the Court must first identify that the four limbs under s 107IAA(1) (above at [8]) are established.
Does Mr Wilkinson display an intense drive, desire, or urge to commit a relevant sexual offence?
[20] In her assessment report, Dr Gordon set out her conclusion that Mr Wilkinson has demonstrated an intense drive, desire and urge to commit a relevant sexual offence over an extended period of time, recording:
66. Mr Wilkinson’s significant history of deviant sexual interests and the compulsivity of his sexual offending against his victims have demonstrated his strong desire to indiscriminately satisfy his sexual urges. He has committed relevant sexual offences during two separate periods, between October and November 2010, and December 2020 to February 2021. The approximate ten-year period where Mr Wilkinson had not engaged in further relevant sexual offences following his 2010 relevant sexual offending, is when he had been on a prison or community sentence. While in the community during this period, he continued to evidence sexual interest in young boys,
through his repeated engagement in indecent acts, which resulted in further periods of imprisonment. The offence-specific group treatment he received in the KM HIP-CSO [Kia Mārama High Intensity Programme for Men with Sexual Offending Against Children] in 2012/2103, followed by engagement in the Graduates Group and a significant period engaged in individual intervention following release into the community, was not enough to interrupt his pattern of sexual offending against young boys. The author concludes that Mr Wilkinson has demonstrated an intense drive, desire, and urge to commit a relevant sexual offence over an extended period of time.
[21]I find this conclusion justified for the reasons identified by Dr Gordon.
Does Mr Wilkinson have a predilection or proclivity for serious sexual offending
[22] Dr Gordon concluded Mr Wilkinson has demonstrated a predilection and proclivity for serious sexual offending, reporting:
67. Mr Wilkinson’s established deviant sexual preference for prepubescent and pubescent boys, and his long-standing pattern of sexual offending against these victims over time demonstrates his predilection (preference for) and proclivity (tendency towards) for sexual offending against young boys. Mr Wilkinson’s repeated engagement in relevant sexual offending, alongside his lack of interest in appropriate sexual activity with consenting adults, which he reported last occurred in 2010, also demonstrates a clear predilection for serious sexual offending. The author concludes that Mr Wilkinson has demonstrated a predilection and proclivity for serious sexual offending.
[23]I consider this conclusion justified.
Does Mr Wilkinson have limited self-regulatory capacity?
[24] In her report, Dr Gordon concluded Mr Wilkinson has demonstrated significant difficulties in managing his sexual self-regulation, reporting:
68. Mr Wilkinson appears unable to manage his sexual urges, which is directed at young boys. He has engaged in sexual offending when the impulse was present, which has included his indecent acts as well as indecent assaults. However, part of his index offending included more targeted and planned sexual grooming behaviour. Similar to previous assessments, Mr Wilkinson demonstrated some awareness regarding his limited self-regulatory ability. He was noted to describe prison as “easy” and expressed an openness to having an ESO as he reported this would provide him with more support and oversight to assist with desisting from further sexual offending behaviour. His treating psychologists highlighted Mr Wilkinson’s ongoing requirement of external management, particularly when he has become emotionally dysregulated. Mr Wilkinson tends to take a passive role in his relationships with others and tends to be avoidant of conflict. During the current assessment,
Mr Wilkinson demonstrated intellectual understanding regarding strategies that may help his ability to self-regulate, however, he has previously demonstrated this understanding and engaged in further sexual offending. He was also observed to place significant weight on a friendship as increasing his ability to change. File information highlighted a long-held pattern of externalising responsibility towards others to intervene prior to his sexual offending behaviour. The author concludes that Mr Wilkinson has demonstrated significant difficulties in his ability to manage his sexual self- regulation, and use of primarily passive and avoidant strategies to manage himself more generally.
[25]I consider Dr Gordon’s conclusion to be valid.
Has Mr Wilkinson accepted responsibility and shown remorse for past offending?
[26] Dr Gordon reported that, throughout her assessment of Mr Wilkinson, he had expressed remorse for his offending behaviour and had more generally identified his offending as very serious. But, in Dr Gordon’s assessment, Mr Wilkinson remains unable to acknowledge the underlying motivation that precipitated his offending behaviour, namely his deviant sexual interest in young boys. Dr Gordon concluded Mr Wilkinson’s level of remorse and the responsibility he experiences is questionable, having regard to Mr Wilkinson’s failure to demonstrate responsibility regarding the management of his risk and reoffending. This indicates he is reliant on others to support him.
[27] Dr Gordon concludes that Mr Wilkinson’s level of remorse and acceptance are not likely to have a risk-mitigating effect.
[28]I accept Dr Gordon’s conclusions.
Has Mr Wilkinson displayed an absence of understanding for or concern about the impact of his sexual offending on actual or potential victims?
[29] As the previous characteristic relating to a lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse (under s 107IAA(1)(d)(i) of the Act) has been displayed by Mr Wilkinson, it is strictly unnecessary that this second characteristic be established.
[30] That said, Dr Gordon noted Mr Wilkinson has expressed a desire to complete treatment and a willingness to be subject to an ESO as a way to increase his ability to
keep the community and other potential victims safe. Dr Gordon, on the other hand, identified that when Mr Wilkinson previously completed a high-intensity treatment programme followed by individual treatment, he then repeatedly engaged in further sexual offending while individually supported. Dr Gordon identifies Mr Wilkinson as being focused on his own enjoyment and believing that he has not been hurting anyone. Dr Gordon concludes that Mr Wilkinson’s expressed emotional concern appears insufficient as yet to act to reduce or assist Mr Wilkinson independently to manage his risk of further sexual offending. Her overall conclusion is that his level of understanding and his concern has had minimal impact in managing his sexual risk.
[31]I adopt those conclusions.
Overall conclusion
[32] All of the requirements of s 107I(1) have been satisfied. This leads me to the point where I am required to determine whether Mr Wilkinson is at high risk of committing a relevant sexual offence in the future.
Does Mr Wilkinson pose a high risk of committing a relevant sexual offence in the future?
[33] Dr Gordon used static, dynamic and clinical risk assessment tools to consider the risk Mr Wilkinson poses. The approach to such evidence has been recognised by the Court of Appeal in R v Peta.10 The risk assessment has regard to the fact that Mr Wilkinson previously completed the KM HIP-CSO programme in 2013 and subsequently engaged in further offending behaviour. The reported positive treatment progress previously achieved therefore failed to translate into behavioural change, even with additional support.
[34] Dr Gordon identifies a number of responsivity areas that have likely limited Mr Wilkinson’s progress in previous treatment and will continue to be associated with minimal sustained change—those include personality factors, past trauma experiences and identity confusion, and an unwillingness to acknowledge deviant sexual interest and sexual motivation.
10 R v Peta, above n 1, at [52].
[35] The particular instruments on which Dr Gordon chose to measure Mr Wilkinson’s static and dynamic risk respectively were the Static-99R and the VRS:SO.11 On the Static-99R, Mr Wilkinson’s score placed him in the Well Above Average risk (Level IVb) category. On the VRS:SO version, Mr Wilkinson was also placed in the Well Above Average risk category. Dr Gordon’s analysis of the VRS:SO dynamic three subscale scores found Mr Wilkinson has a score similar to those found to be in the 100th percentile for the Sexual Deviancy subscale, the 51st percentile for the Criminality subscale, and the 90th percentile for the Treatment Responsivity subscale. Dr Gordon explained these results indicate Mr Wilkinson’s offending relates primarily to his deviant sexual interests and poor responsivity to treatment to date rather than criminal attitudes.
[36] Dr Gordon concludes that Mr Wilkinson has a current high risk of committing another relevant sexual offence when released into the community.
[37]The assessment of risk level is ultimately a matter for evaluation by the Court.
[38] I conclude (and I note Ms Lawrence has not suggested otherwise) that there is a high risk that Mr Wilkinson will in the future commit a relevant sexual offence. Gaps in his offending in more recent years can be associated with periods when he has not been in prison.
[39] Mr Wilkinson clearly has a preoccupation with sexual activity involving pubescent and pre-pubescent boys, yet appears unwilling or unable, through a lack of ability to manage his sexual self-regulation, to fully acknowledge and respond to his deviant sexual interest in young boys. In short, as observed by Dr Gordon, he has not demonstrated a responsibility regarding the management of his risk of reoffending.
[40] Most recently, Mr Wilkinson has, for a second time, completed the KM HIP-CSO programme. Mr Wilkinson has had a single “guided release” in the community on 3 June 2025, with no concerns raised by the Kia Mārama Reintegration coordinator. It is clearly to Mr Wilkinson’s credit that he has successfully completed that programme and completed a guided release. But, as past events have identified,
11 Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offence.
this stage must be regarded as “early days”. It would be premature to try to reliably assess the significance of Mr Wilkinson’s progress.
[41] I conclude he remains at high risk of committing a relevant sexual offence in the future.
The discretion to make an ESO
[42]I also consider it is appropriate that an ESO be made.
The duration of the order
[43] I am now required to determine the duration of the ESO. Ms Lawrence has recently identified this as the single issue Mr Wilkinson seeks to raise at this hearing. The Chief Executive’s position is that the Court should make an ESO of at least five years’ duration. Ms Lawrence submits that a duration of two years would be sufficient for community safety.
[44] Section 107I of the Act relevantly provides for a maximum term of 10 years. As set out at [9] above, I must impose the minimum period required for the purposes of the safety of the community, having regard to the factors identified in subs (5).
[45]There will be a variety of factors that inform the s 107I(5) considerations.
[46] In relation to the level of risk posed by an offender, a 10-year term has been imposed where the offender denied responsibility for the offending and was not motivated to engage in treatment directed at the offending.12 The isolated nature of a relevant offence has been found to affect the risk assessment.13 An offender’s likely progress in relation to underlying issues that cause or contribute to the offending (such as alcohol or drug addiction) is relevant.14 The period the offender is likely to need to achieve self-regulation is likely to be central to the assessment of an appropriate period having regard to the level of risk. The Court will also have regard to what actuarial
12 Chief Executive Department of Corrections v Alinizi [2016] NZCA 468 at [38]. See also, Kiddell v Chief Executive Department of Corrections [2019] NZCA 171.
13 Chief Executive Department of Corrections v H (CA359/05), 1 May 2006.
14 Chief Executive Department of Corrections v Clark [2017] NZHC 771 at [65].
models indicate, such as whether a very high risk of relevant offending would continue for 10 years.15
[47] On the other hand, evidence of the acceptance of responsibility (such as by entry of guilty pleas and the demonstration of motivation to engage in treatment) will tend in favour of a shorter term of ESO.16 The likelihood that risk profile will reduce because of an offender’s advancing in age will be relevant.17
[48] The Court of Appeal has recognised in Paniora v Chief Executive Department of Corrections that an order for the maximum period of 10 years may be appropriate if there are clear indications in the health assessor’s reports of longer-term risk despite the fact that models used by psychologists do not predict risk beyond a shorter period (in that case, five years).18
[49] Ms Lawrence, for Mr Wilkinson, has submitted the Court, when assessing the term of the ESO under s 107I(4) may have regard to the Chief Executive’s entitlement under s 107F(1)(b) of the Act, to apply for a further ESO. I consider it would be wrong in principle for the Court to consider that right to bring a later application when making its assessment on a present ESO application, having regard to the statutory criteria under s 107I(5). The Court of Appeal in Moeke v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, for a similar reason, found it would be wrong in principle when fixing the term of an ESO to have regard to the Court’s power to later cancel or modify the order, which “comes at a later stage”.19
[50] It is generally recognised the second criterion under s 107I(5)—the seriousness of the harm that might be caused to victims—is a factor that speaks for itself.20 That said, it is a factor the Court must separately consider in assessing the appropriate term.21
15 W (CA716/18) v Chief Executive Department of Corrections [2019] NZCA 460.
16 Chief Executive Department of Corrections v Alinizi, above n 12, at [38].
17 Wardle v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2017] NZCA 298 at [65]; and Chief Executive Department of Corrections v Hawkins [2019] NZHC 482 at [83].
18 Paniora v Chief Executive Department of Corrections [2018] NZCA 607.
19 Moeke v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2010] NZCA 60 at [25].
20 See, for instance Chief Executive Department of Corrections v Clark, above n 14, at [67].
21 R v Peta, above n 1, at [61]; and Turner v Chief Executive Department of Corrections [2010] NZCA 482 at [10]–[11].
[51] The third criterion under s 107I(5)—the likely duration of the risk—is most likely to lead to a shorter term of ESO where the evidence identifies specific circumstances that will improve the offender’s ability to self-regulate or will naturally cut across the risk of offending. Such circumstances have been identified where the offender is advancing in age;22 suffers ill-health and/or dementia;23 or is receiving treatment for underlying, causative alcohol and/or drug addiction issues;24
What should the term of the order be in this case?
The level of risk posed by Mr Wilkinson
[52] Mr Wilkinson’s VRS:SO dynamic three sub-scale scores, identified by Dr Gordon, are the most relevant for assessing the high level of risk posed by Mr Wilkinson. Dr Gordon in her oral evidence explained, in relation to Mr Wilkinson being similar to those found in the 100th percentile for the Sexual Deviancy subscale, that 99.5 per cent of the population sit below Mr Wilkinson on that subscale. As recorded in Dr Gordon’s report, Mr Wilkinson’s score on the Treatment Responsivity subscale (that is his response to treatment) indicates Mr Wilkinson is in the 90th percentile (meaning some 90 per cent of people will experience fewer potential barriers to treatment than Mr Wilkinson will).
[53] Dr Gordon in her oral evidence confirmed, as recorded in her report, that Mr Wilkinson’s risk profile is significantly affected by the fact he previously failed to translate reported positive treatment progress (from his engagement in KM HIP-CSO programme in 2013) to behavioural change, even with the important assistance of individual intervention when he was released into the community. His relevant reoffending occurred within 19 months of release.
[54]I conclude Mr Wilkinson poses a high risk to community safety.
22 Wardle v Chief Executive Department of Corrections [2017] NZCA 298 at [65]: It would be in accordance with normal statistical expectations for the level of risk posed to decline at some stage during the offender’s seventh decade with a commensurate reduction of the duration of the risk posed and the seriousness of harm that might be caused.
23 Chief Executive Department of Corrections v Dick HC Napier CRI-2007-441-16, 8 May 2008 at [30]; and Chief Executive Department of Corrections v van der Plaat [2016] NZHC 3186 at [70].
24 Chief Executive Department of Corrections v Clark, above n 14, at [68].
The seriousness of the harm Mr Wilkinson might cause to victims
[55] The impact of Mr Wilkinson’s offending to date has been on both pubescent and pre-pubescent boys. At the lower level of seriousness has been non-contact sexual offending, involving exposure of genitals and masturbation in front of the victims. What significantly increases the seriousness of his offending and his potential reoffending is the fact earlier offending has been accompanied by violence and that non-contact sexual offending has escalated to contact offending. The element of sexual grooming creates additional risks for vulnerable young boys. The conclusion reached by Dr Gordon that Mr Wilkinson, given his previous offending, may engage in threatening or intimidating behaviour, including physical violence, to achieve victim compliance points to the seriousness of harm Mr Wilkinson might cause to victims.
The likely duration of the risk
[56] Ms Lawrence related her proposed two-year term of the ESO to the fact it was longer than the 19 month period Mr Wilkinson took to reoffend following his 2013 release.
[57] Dr Gordon, while recognising the identification of the appropriate term of an ESO is a matter for the Court, concluded that Mr Wilkinson, if his required risk reduction is to be successful, will require support by external monitoring and management “over the longer term”. In her oral evidence, Dr Gordon characterised Mr Wilkinson’s reoffending after his release in 2013 as “quick reoffending”, particularly having regard to the fact Mr Wilkinson had engaged through that period in individual treatment. Dr Gordon considered, without putting a timeframe on it, that Mr Wilkinson requires an “extended period” to ensure that behavioural change can be seen.
[58] What distinguishes Mr Wilkinson’s case from many others is the evidence of Mr Wilkinson’s behaviour after an apparently successful graduation from a previous KM HIP-CSO programme at a time when he was under individual treatment. His re-offending at that time indicates there is no assurance that Mr Wilkinson’s level of behavioural change is now such as to be sustainable in a short-term period such as
two years. The risk that he will reoffend and cause serious harm to young boys will endure for a significantly longer period than that.
[59] Whatever period is imposed will not see Mr Wilkinson reach an age that can be considered as reducing his risk profile. What will be required is the period of treatment and monitoring of sufficient duration that gives reasonable assurance a behavioural change has become embedded, in contrast to the short-lived behavioural change of 2013.
[60] The detail of Dr Gordon’s report indicates Mr Wilkinson still has much to do in relation to behavioural change. He presented during Dr Gordon’s recent assessment of him as “dysregulated, defensive, and hostile”, when questioned about a relationship. Dr Gordon further observed that:
Of further concern is his failure to incorporate feedback into his world view and he has overtly dismissed feedback from those supporting him to make change … This together with his inability to engage in appropriate sexual fantasy that he finds enjoyable, is considered a substantial barrier to him benefiting from components of the treatment.
[61] I am satisfied that a lengthy period of supervision and treatment is required for Mr Wilkinson, appreciably beyond the two years proposed by Ms Lawrence.
[62] I conclude that the minimum period required for the purposes of the safety of the community is five years.
Special conditions
[63] The Chief Executive has not sought interim special conditions. I have been informed the Parole Board is to convene on 10 July 2025. I infer the Chief Executive’s expectation is the Parole Board will then be able to impose special conditions under s 107K of the Act.
Result
[64] I make an extended supervision order in relation to Mr Wilkinson for a period of five years commencing today.
Osborne J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Dunedin
Public Defence Service, Dunedin
0
11
0