Department of Corrections v Adamson
[2025] NZHC 1930
•15 July 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE
CRI-2025-443-14
[2025] NZHC 1930
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v
TONY DANIEL ADAMSON
Hearing (via AVL): 9 July 2025 Counsel:
R L Hinklin for Applicant
D M Goodlet for Respondent
Judgment:
15 July 2025
JUDGMENT OF GRAU J
[Interim Supervision Order]
Application for Interim Supervision Order
[1] Mr Adamson, aged 37, will shortly be released from prison on his statutory release date of 29 August 2025 after serving a sentence of 19 years and four months. In 2007 Mr Adamson was sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment for offending which included aggravated robbery,1 aggravated burglary,2 kidnapping,3 rape4 and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.5 Additional cumulative sentences then followed for offending involving violence and property damage committed while he was in prison.
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(c); maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 232(1)(a); maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.
3 Section 209; maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.
4 Sections 128(1)(a) and 128B; maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.
5 Sections 128(1)(b) and 128B; maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v ADAMSON [2025] NZHC 1930 [15 July 2025]
[2] The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (the Department) has applied for an Extended Supervision Order (ESO). That application will not be determined until early February next year. In the meantime, the Department applies for an Interim Supervision Order (ISO) with an intensive monitoring (IM) condition under ss 107FA and 107IAB of the Parole Act 2002 pending determination of the ESO application. The Department says Mr Adamson has had a pervasive patten of serious violent offending since 2007 and a Health Assessor’s report has concluded that Mr Adamson poses a very high risk of committing a further relevant violent offence following his release into the community. In circumstances where Mr Adamson is yet to complete offence focused treatment, the Department says he will require active management and support on his release to manage the risk he poses. In those circumstances an IM condition enabling accompaniment and monitoring of Mr Adamson for up to 24 hours a day is said to be required to ensure the safety of the community.
[3] Mr Adamson opposes the application. He does not accept he currently has a pervasive pattern of violent offending or a very high risk of committing a relevant violent offence in the future. Ms Goodlet therefore says on his behalf that an ISO is not warranted. However, if the Court is satisfied an ISO is warranted for a provisional period, Mr Adamson is opposed to the imposition of an IM condition and puts forward the alternative of partial residential restrictions and GPS monitoring.
Mr Adamson’s criminal history
[4] In 2007, Mr Adamson, then aged 19, pleaded guilty to a number of charges which included kidnapping, aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary (both with a weapon), as well as rape and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. In terms of the facts that made up that offending, Mr Adamson arrived at the first victim’s address and requested a ride. She drove him to his destination, and he then produced a knife, held it to her neck and instructed her to drive. He told her he had been thinking of doing this for a while. He prevented her from escaping but she eventually broke free, and he drove off in her car to the second victim’s address. Still armed with the knife, he raped and sexually violated the second victim.
[5] At that time, Mr Adamson had a significant history in the Youth Court and the District Court for a variety of offending, including for possession of an offensive weapon.
[6] In 2011, while he was serving his sentence for the 2007 offending, Mr Adamson received a six-month cumulative sentence for committing an assault with a weapon. When he was unlocked from his cell, he rushed at two Corrections Officers with a sharpened metal object in one hand and a glass tube in the other. The metal object struck one officer, but he was not seriously injured.
[7] In 2012, Mr Adamson received two cumulative four-month sentences for damaging prison property.
[8] In 2017, Mr Adamson was sentenced to a cumulative sentence of two years and two months on a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He and a co-offender attacked another inmate in his cell, using a stabbing instrument. The victim was stabbed 21 times and strangled with an electrical cord.
Legal framework
[9] The grant of an ISO under s 107FA of the Parole Act is an interim measure which imposes supervision pending the determination of an application for an ESO. Section 107FA relevantly provides as follows:
107FA Sentencing court may make interim supervision order
(1)This section applies if, before an application for an extended supervision order is finally determined, 1 or more of the following events occur:
(a)the offender who is the subject of the application is released from detention:
…
(2)The sentencing court may, on application by the chief executive, order that, until the application for an extended supervision order is finally determined, the offender is subject to the supervision conditions specified in the order.
(3)When the court makes an order under subsection (2) [an interim supervision order], it may impose any of the standard conditions that
are (under section 107JA), or special conditions that may be (under section 107K), imposed under an extended supervision order.
(4)If, under an interim supervision order, the court imposes an intensive monitoring condition or residential restrictions, the period for which the interim supervision order is in force is not to be taken into account for the purpose of the limits specified in section 107K(3)(b) and (ba).
(5)The court may suspend an interim supervision order subject to any conditions that the court thinks fit.
(6)An interim supervision order ceases to have effect when the application for an extended supervision order is finally determined or discontinued.
[10] A test is not prescribed for the granting of an ISO. However, 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”.6 As La Hood J has said, that approach accords with the Supreme Court’s approach to the imposition of interim public protection orders.7 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 (NZBORA). It involves a proportionality analysis, balancing the rights at issue against the statutory approach required. The Court of Appeal has described the approach to be taken as follows:8
[31] Applying this approach to the ESO regime, if the statutory criteria are met, a court must balance the right not to be subject to a second penalty (that is, being subject to an ESO when a person has served their sentence for a violent offence) against the statutory purpose to protect the public from the very high risk that an offender will commit a relevant violent offence. Put more simply in R (CA586/2021) v R, and as adopted in Wilson v Department of Corrections, ‘strong justification’ is required for an ESO and this is the ‘lens’ through which this Court must assess whether the Judge erred in making the order.
6 Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Ihimaera [2017] NZHC 2228 at [14]. In so holding, Muir J departs from the view of Davidson J in Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Martin [2016] NZHC 275 at [37] that “the Court need not be satisfied to the same extent as is required when considering whether to make an ESO”. 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].
7 Department of Corrections v Hartley [2024] NZHC 2214 at [9] with reference to Chisnall v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 114.
8 Mosen v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 507 at [30]–[31].
[11] Accordingly, the underlying purposes and principles of the ESO regime are relevant to the Court's decision whether to impose an ISO. The purpose of an ESO is to protect the community from those who pose a real and ongoing risk of committing serious violent or sexual offences after release from a sentence of imprisonment.9 A Court may only make an ESO if satisfied that the thresholds in s 1071(2) have been met, relevantly in this case that Mr Adamson has, or has had, a pervasive pattern of serious violent offending, and there is a very high risk that he will in future commit a relevant violent offence.10
[12] Section 107IAA(2) sets out the matters the Court must be satisfied of before determining there is a very high risk of commission of a relevant violent offence under s 107I(2)(c)(i):
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.
9 Parole Act 2002, s 107I(1).
10 Although Mr Adamson’s 2007 offending included sexual offending, he is not considered as posing a high risk of relevant sexual offending when he did not present with a pervasive pattern of sexual offending.
[13] 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.11 The Court is also entitled to take into account past conduct, including unproven allegations and conduct that does not actually constitute an offence.12
[14] Section 107IAB enables the Department to apply for an IM condition. It requires an offender to be accompanied and monitored by an approved person for up to 24 hours a day. Again, there is no statutory test to be met before an IM order can be made. However, it would only be imposed where the risk is considered to be very high and where an offender is considered to need external controls to mitigate that risk.13
Mr Adamson’s position
[15] Ms Goodlet stresses that the discretion to impose an ISO must be exercised consistently with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the NZBORA. Thus, there must be strong justification for the making of an ISO. When Mr Adamson has served his sentence for a violent offence, the Court must balance his right not to be subject to a second penalty against the purpose of protection of the public from a very high risk of commission of a relevant violent offence.
[16] Ms Goodlet observes Mr Adamson engaged fully with the Health Assessor for the provision of the report dated 28 January 2025 (the Health Assessor’s report). He spent some four-and-a-half hours with the writer and he did not engage in any concerning behaviour. Nor did he present with any obvious signs of disorders of mood, thought or perception. He did not indicate he was at immediate risk of harming others. Although he raised specific grievances he had with Corrections staff, he denied any violent intent towards them.
[17] Ms Goodlet also points out that Mr Adamson’s security classification has now been reduced to low/medium, clearly reflecting his improved conduct in custody. The Health Assessor’s report also records that Mr Adamson’s behaviour has improved over
11 Section 107H(2).
12 Holland v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 504 at [42]–[43].
13 Chief Executive of Department of Corrections v Paul [2017] NZHC 1294 at [39].
the last few years; there have been no violent incidents since 2015. A misconduct charge in 2024 only related to verbal abuse. Nor was there violence involved in other misconduct incidents from early 2022 until a Parole Assessment Report written in December 2023. The subsequent Parole Assessment Report for the period until the Parole hearing in February 2025, and the latest report, covering the period from February 2025 to June 2025, did not include any incidents of actual violence either.
[18] The Health Assessor’s report also confirms that Mr Adamson commenced treatment with a senior psychologist, Dr Barry, in July 2024. That treatment is said to be continuing and it will continue on release.
[19] Mr Adamson has confirmed he is “fully motivated and focussed” on not returning to prison and understands how he needs to manage himself. He does not accept he currently has a pervasive pattern of violent offending, and he considers he is not at a very high risk of committing a relevant violent offence in future. In particular, Ms Goodlet submits there is no established evidence that Mr Adamson has the characteristic of extreme aggressive volatility. Rather, his aggression and volatility have been diminishing over the last 10 years, reflecting that he has matured and has developed self-control. As well, his counselling assists with tools and skills to moderate his behaviour.
[20] Ms Goodlet also says an IM condition is not warranted in the event an ISO is made. Instead, a partial residential restriction with electronic monitoring and a night- time curfew would suffice. It would allow for him to be monitored while at the same time providing Mr Adamson with a good opportunity to reintegrate into the community.
The Health Assessor’s report
[21] The Department has filed a Health Assessor’s report dated 28 January 2025. The report writer, Katie Harrison, a clinical psychologist, interviewed Mr Adamson on 2 September 2024. Following her assessment she concluded:
100It is the writer's opinion that there is a very high risk of Mr Adamson committing a further relevant violent offence following his release to the community. He has demonstrated an intense drive, desire
and urge to commit acts of violence. He has displayed extreme aggressive volatility across a range of interpersonal contexts and has used weapons. Mr Adamson has limited self-regulation to support risk management, and appears to have limited understanding of, or concern regarding, the harm to victims. There is also reliable evidence that he has a pattern of persistently harbouring vengeful intentions towards others and that he has engaged in intentional planning to commit a serious violent offence.
101Mr Adamson has yet to complete offence focused treatment and, therefore, to develop a personalised relapse prevention plan. Consequently, he is currently considered to have a breadth of unaddressed offence related needs and until these are satisfactorily addressed, reliable risk reduction is unlikely to occur. For risk reduction to occur over the longer-term, it will be reliant on Mr Adamson's commitment to reliably internalise risk-mitigating skills. At this time, it is considered that Mr Adamson lacks awareness of his propensity for violence, and, therefore, is less motivated to independently manage his risk. Therefore, risk reduction is likely to be more successful when supported by external monitoring and management of Mr Adamson's behaviour. Mr Adamson has not yet developed a robust release plan that is likely to assist him with managing his broad reintegrative needs. Therefore, he will need support to develop a clear framework that will assist him with maintaining stable functioning and behaviour when reintegrating into the community.
Discussion
Does Mr Adamson have, or has he had, a pervasive pattern of serious violent offending?
[22] I recognise that Mr Adamson has not yet had the opportunity of filing his own evidence and this hearing is at an interim stage. Thus, what the Court has at this stage is a Health Assessor’s report that puts Mr Adamson at a very high risk of future serious violent offending, as against the submissions Ms Goodlet has made. Ms Goodlet has said all that she possibly could on behalf of Mr Adamson, but I am satisfied on the basis of the Health Assessor’s report that Mr Adamson has demonstrated he has had a pervasive pattern of serious violent offending. As the report sets out, he has engaged in repeated acts of violence since adolescence in different contexts with a varied victim profile. He has been violent in the community and in prison. He has a history of using weapons. Sanctions have not deterred him. His use of violence has persisted over many years. I accept, as Ms Goodlet stressed, that Mr Adamson’s actual violence appears to have tapered off in more recent years, reducing to threatening and verbally
abusive behaviour, so that he may not currently have a pervasive pattern of serious violent offending. But the threshold is that he has “or has had” such a pervasive pattern. It is abundantly clear he has had such a pattern. I am satisfied that, despite periods of calm, he has had a pervasive pattern of serious violent offending from at least 2007 to 2017.
Is there a high risk that Mr Adamson will in the future commit a relevant violent offence?
[23] I am also satisfied, on the basis of the Health Assessor’s report, that there is a very high risk of Mr Adamson committing a further relevant violent offence following release into the community.
[24] First, I am unable to accept the submission for Mr Adamson that there is no established evidence he has the characteristic of extreme aggressive volatility. The evidence set out in the Health Assessor’s report suggests otherwise. That evidence includes his re-enactments of incidents with prison staff during his interview to demonstrate his view he had been unfairly targeted, and the numerous misconducts he has accrued during his sentence which suggest his reactions to matters he disagrees with are extreme. And there is no evidence to the contrary, beyond Mr Adamson’s self-report. I agree, however, that he has shown a diverse range of problematic behaviours in prison which represents a pattern of aggressive volatility. Although there has been some recent reduction, and a start of counselling (which is a very positive step and may be assisting in that regard) I do not consider that is enough to displace the expert opinion in the report.
[25] I also agree that there is evidence of the persistent harbouring of vengeful intentions. That factor was evident from Mr Adamson’s interview with Ms Harrison where he reported he kept a list of staff against whom he had grievances. Although he denied any intent to act on those grievances, it is nevertheless a clear demonstration of the harbouring of grievances, which is one of Mr Adamson’s longstanding problematic personality traits identified in the report. Alongside Mr Adamson’s history, it demonstrates he has held onto grievances and may plan retaliation.
[26] Furthermore, I consider that the report establishes Mr Adamson has a limited capacity to self-regulate. Although, as Ms Goodlet submits, that capacity may be developing and improving as Mr Adamson matures, it would appear to be a fairly recent development. In my view, it must also be viewed against a longstanding pattern of aggression, non-compliance and violence. Accordingly, while Mr Adamson is to be commended for the progress he now appears to be making, it is too soon, and there is insufficient evidence to persuade me that Mr Adamson has now learned to regulate his emotions and responses to others. It follows that, at this interim stage, I find his ability for self-regulation remains limited.
[27] I also accept the finding of the Health Assessor of a limited ability to reflect on offending or offence related matters. I have seen nothing to suggest any remorse or concern about the impact his violence has had on others. Although Mr Adamson is engaging with Mr Barry now, and that engagement is said to be positive, I have no information about whether that engagement includes reflection on offence-related matters, or whether Mr Adamson is now able to discuss his offending.
[28] For those reasons, for the purpose of granting an ISO, I am provisionally satisfied that Mr Adamson meets the conditions for the making of an ESO.
Interim monitoring condition
[29] As above, an IM condition is only imposed where risk is considered to be very high and where an offender is considered to need external controls to mitigate that risk.
[30] I have reached the view that release conditions would not be sufficient to mitigate the very high-risk Mr Adamson is assessed as posing to the community when he is released in August 2025. There is therefore a basis for making an ISO and imposing the conditions sought via the IM condition on a temporary basis until determination of the application for an ESO in February 2026.
[31] The IM condition is necessary, in my view, when Mr Adamson is assessed at a very high risk of committing a relevant violent offence, and, as the Health Assessor’s report points out, he is yet to complete offence-focused treatment, and therefore he has
a breadth of unaddressed offence related needs. Although Mr Adamson has been engaging one-on-one with a psychologist, there is no information available at this point to demonstrate that his treatment is offence focused. The continuation of treatment after release will also depend on Mr Adamson’s motivation and willingness, although I note he says he is motivated.
[32] It is also the case that Mr Adamson will face many challenges on his release. At this stage he does not have a personalised risk management plan. He is assessed as lacking awareness of his propensity for violence which suggests a lower motivation to manage his risks independently. It is also the case that his longstanding problematic personality traits underscore the risk he presents to the community. As the Health Assessor’s report observes, such matters are usually of an enduring and pervasive nature, likely activate offence pathways and may be a barrier to engagement in rehabilitative activities.
[33] It follows that I agree active management and support will be required immediately upon release. In my view, partial residential restrictions and GPS monitoring will be insufficient to meet the risks Mr Adamson poses. Rather, the need to manage his very high risk, the community protection purpose of the legislation and the relatively modest period of time the conditions will be in place all point to the necessity of the conditions that are sought in order to reduce the very high level of risk Mr Adamson currently presents.
[34] Following the hearing, the Department provided a memorandum which explained the type and level of monitoring of a person subject to an IM condition. I am satisfied that it strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the public and providing a tailored approach to enable opportunities for rehabilitative activities and to transition to lesser restrictions and reductions of monitoring.
[35] The appropriateness of the IM conditions will be capable of re-examination at the time the Court determines the ESO application. By that stage, Mr Adamson will have had an opportunity to demonstrate that his level of risk has decreased, and the Court will have the benefit of more (and more current) information about Mr Adamson.
Bail condition
[36] The Department also asks for an order granting bail under s 107G. Bail is sought to enable enforcement of the ISO orders. It is necessary because the Act only makes it an offence to breach an ESO, not an ISO. The Court has previously made such orders.14 I am satisfied an order is necessary. Accordingly, I also make orders pursuant to s 107G(5)(c)(ii) and s 107G(6) of the Act, bailing Mr Adamson from his date of release on condition that he complies with the conditions of the interim supervision order. The terms of bail are to continue for so long as the ISO remains in force or pending further order of the Court.
Result
[37] I grant the application for an ISO with the conditions set out below, to take effect from Mr Adamson’s release on 27 August 2025, expiring when the application for an ESO is finally determined.
[38] I also make orders pursuant to s 107G(5)(c)(ii) and s 107G(6) of the Act, bailing Mr Adamson from his date of release on condition that he complies with the conditions of the ISO. The terms of bail are to continue for so long as the ISO remains in force or pending further order of the Court.
Conditions
Special conditions
(a)An intensive monitoring condition (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) for the time of this order until the application for an extended supervision order with intensive monitoring condition in this proceeding is finally determined. This condition is to apply for a term of no more than 12 months.
14 See, for example, Department of Corrections v Popata [2017] NZHC 1408.
(b)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.
(c)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.
(d)To engage with a local community health agency, to the satisfaction of your Probation Officer and to attend appointments with a mental health provider as directed by a Probation Officer.
(e)To attend a psychological assessment and attend, participate in and complete any recommended treatment if and as directed by a Probation Officer.
(f)Not to possess, use, or consume alcohol, controlled drugs or psychoactive substances except controlled drugs prescribed for you by a health professional.
(g)Not to enter Taranaki as defined by a Probation Officer in writing unless you have the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.
(h)To submit to electronic monitoring as directed by a Probation Officer in order to monitor your compliance with any conditions relating to your whereabouts.
(i)To disclose to a Probation Officer, at the earliest opportunity, details of any intimate relationship which commences, resumes or terminates.
Standard conditions
(a)The offender must report in person to a Probation Officer in the probation area in which the offender resides as soon as practicable, and not later than
72 hours, after commencement of the extended supervision order.
(b)The offender must report to a Probation Officer as and when required to do so by a Probation Officer, and must notify the Probation Officer of his or her residential address and the nature and place of his or her employment when asked to do so.
(c)The offender must obtain the prior written consent of a Probation Officer before moving to a new residential address.
(d)The offender must not reside at any address at which a Probation Officer has directed the offender not to reside.
(e)The offender must not leave or attempt to leave New Zealand without the prior written consent of a Probation Officer.
(f)The offender must, if a Probation Officer directs, allow the collection of biometric information.
(g)The offender must obtain the prior written consent of a Probation Officer before changing his or her employment.
(h)The offender must not engage, or continue to engage, in any employment or occupation in which the Probation Officer has directed the offender not to engage or continue to engage.
(i)The offender must take part in a rehabilitative and reintegrative needs assessment if and when directed to do so by a Probation Officer.
(j)The offender must not associate with, or contact, a person under the age of 16 years, except—
(i)with the prior written approval of a Probation Officer; and
(ii)in the presence and under the supervision of an adult who—
a. has been informed about the relevant offending; and
b. has been approved in writing by a Probation Officer as suitable to undertake the role of supervision.
(k)The offender must not associate with, or contact, a victim of the offender without the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.
(l)The offender must not associate with, or contact, any person or class of person specified in a written direction given to the offender for the purposes of this paragraph.
Grau J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth for Crown cc: D M Goodlet for Respondent
0
5
0