Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002
Hearing: 18 February 2010 at (Withheld) Prison
Members of the Board:
Hon. M A Frater
Judge P Mahony
Assoc. Prof. P Brinded
Mr J Thomson
Ms S Pakura
DECISION OF THE BOARD
John Robert Barlow, who is 64 years of age, is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Eugene and Gene Thomas, 16 years ago.
This is the third occasion that he has appeared before the Board since becoming eligible to be released on parole.
Mr Barlow is aware that some members of the victims’ family strongly oppose his release until he acknowledges his guilt and undergoes thorough rehabilitation. But while he accepts, following the 2009 judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council dismissing his appeal, that having exhausted his legal remedies he will remain a convicted murderer, he continues to maintain his innocence.
Of course, denial of offending, of itself, does not preclude release on parole.
The Board’s task, in accordance with the provisions of sections 7 and 28 of the Parole Act 2002 is only to release an offender if satisfied on reasonable grounds that he will not pose an undue risk to the safety of the community, having regard to:
a. the principle that an offender must not be detained any longer than is consistent with the safety of the community;
b. the rights of the victims;
c. the support and supervision available to him following release;
d. the public interest in his reintegration into society as a law abiding citizen.
Mr Barlow has consistently been assessed as posing a low risk of reoffending based upon both static and dynamic risk factors.
The Board is not bound by that assessment but it is obviously a very important starting point.
The factors that we have considered in determining whether Mr Barlow can safely be released now fall under three headings:
a. behaviour in prison;
b. reintegrative moves;
c. strength of release plan.
Dealing first with Mr Barlow’s Behaviour in Prison.
Although he has been reclassified as an Intervention category prisoner, because he denies his offending and has a low RoC*RoI, he has been deemed unsuitable to attend the intensive violence prevention programme offered in Te Whare Manaakitanga at (Withheld) Prison. And he does not consider that any of the programmes available in prison are appropriate for him in any event.
While he has remained IDU-free and maintains an AA security classification, in July last year he incurred his first misconduct. This was for having an unapproved item in his cell, namely a dust mask, which he had brought back from his work in the joinery shop. The seriousness of the infringement is reflected in the fact that he was admonished and discharged. Of considerably more concern to the Board is the fact that he admitted ‘trading’ and that he had done so over a number of years. This involved him supplying fellow prisoners with cigarettes and being paid for them in kind or with money but with a premium, or by being given food. He explained this on the basis that it was general practice within the prison environment and that, unlike the gangs who use stand-over tactics to extort repayment, he caused no harm to any individual. He said that he desisted with the practice once he was warned by prison authorities about the consequences.
Although the last Board recommended that Mr Barlow participate in release to work and undertake temporary releases in the intervening year he has not engaged in release to work and has had only one home leave.
There was a proposal for Mr Barlow to work in an administrative role in the CIE building at (Withheld) Prison but for reasons quite outside Mr Barlow’s control, that did not happen. He therefore worked in the joinery shop for a while. But that came to an end with the misconduct. He is currently working in an escorted community gang, building and maintaining tracks in (Area Withheld). He says that in the course of this work he has ample opportunity to see what is going on in the community and interact with members of the public.
His application for temporary release was put on hold after he incurred the misconduct and while his appeal against the warning issued was progressed through to a hearing before the Visiting Justice. All concerned report that the home leave went very well and with no glitches.
On the basis of his ongoing contact with (Name Withheld), who has been a regular and faithful visitor to the prison and with whom he has had daily contact by telephone, his regular reading of the newspapers and by following the news, and his past life experience as a senior executive in a large commercial organisation, Mr Barlow does not see the need to engage in release to work or further home leaves. Nor does he see any merit in spending some time living in the Self Care Unit. He rightly says that, unlike many if not the majority of prisoners, he does not have to build up community support; nor does he have to learn the skills of daily living such as cooking and budgeting.
Certainly Mr Barlow is extremely fortunate, and he acknowledges as much, in having a very supportive family who are waiting to welcome him home.
Mr Barlow is supremely confident about his ability to slip back into the family fold and to lead a pro‑social existence. But we have reservations. Three specific issues cause us concern.
The first is Mr Barlow’s ongoing involvement in trading within the prison, notwithstanding that he would or should have known that it was against prison rules. In our view it demonstrates his lack of judgement and a ready tendency to justify his behaviour which in fact breaches the rules.
Secondly, there is his attitude to members of the victims’ family and what he would do if he inadvertently met up with any of them. When asked about this he gave as an example a situation when he was on bail and (Name Withheld) came into a restaurant where he, Mr Barlow, and (Name Withheld), were already eating. He spoke of the pleasant conversation that they had and how the interaction was all very civilised. He was asked what he would do if a similar situation arose again. He did not see the need to do anything different. His approach seemed to be to put the onus on them to make the move rather than he taking the initiative. He showed a complete lack of understanding of their predicament.
Finally, there is the issue of his attitude to guns which was discussed with the last Board. Mr Barlow confirmed that while he has a passion for antiques, he is not interested in collecting guns and would not do so.
Following the hearing, (His Support Persons – Names Withheld), all signed written undertakings to the effect that if they ever became aware or even suspected any possible breach of John Barlow’s conditions of parole they would immediately and without any discussion with him, notify his counsel, Greg King, and fully appraise him of their concerns. They would also immediately notify the Parole Board. Mr Barlow also signed a statement saying that he understands and endorses these undertakings.
While these are helpful, we are left with concerns about Mr Barlow’s readiness for release on parole. We consider that he is over confident about his ability to fit into society as a law abiding citizen and that his involvement in the community work gang and his one home leave have not been sufficient to expose him to the reality of life outside the wire or enabled him to formulate appropriate responses to challenging situations.
Accordingly, parole is declined. At this stage he poses an undue risk to the safety of the community.
Mr Barlow will be seen again in six months time, at the August sitting of the Extended Board. We would support him in being involved in as many temporary releases as possible in the intervening period.
|
(signed) Hon. M A Frater Panel Convenor |
|
Review You may apply for a review of the Board’s decision under section 67(1). The only grounds under which you may make an application for review are that the Board, in making its decision: a) Failed to comply with procedures in the Parole Act 2002; or
b) Made an error of law; or c) Failed to comply with Board policy resulting in unfairness to the offender; or d) Based its decision on erroneous or irrelevant information that was material to the decision reached; or e) Acted without jurisdiction. To apply for a review you must write to the Board within 28 days of its decision stating which of the above ground(s) you consider to be relevant in your case and giving reasons why you believe that ground(s) applies. Reviews are considered on the papers only. There is no hearing in respect of your Review Application.
|