Under Section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002
Hearing: 31 March 2009 at (Withheld) Prison
Members of the Board:
Judge D J Carruthers – Panel Convenor
Judge B R L Lovegrove
Judge P D Mahony
A/Prof. P Brinded
Ms S Baragwanath
Mrs J Jackson
Counsel: Mr G King
John Robert Barlow appears to be considered for parole. He first appeared first for such consideration in November 2008. The hearing was then adjourned for further psychological information.
Mr Barlow is serving a life sentence for the “execution style” murder of two men. He began his sentence in December 1995. He cannot be released until release is safe and proper. For that to be the case, in accordance with the law, the Board must have reasonable grounds to be satisfied he poses no undue risk to the safety of the community or to any person in it for the rest of his life having regard to the nature of any likely further offending and the support and supervision available to him in the community, and having regard to the virtue set out in the Parole Act of his returning to the community as a law-abiding citizen. The Board is further enjoined by the Parole Act to go on to consider whether parole commends itself as a way forward having regard to all matters properly within its discretion.
Mr Barlow is now 63 years of age. It is important to record that he has consistently denied the offending of which he stands convicted. He continues to deny it. His denial has precluded any kind of criminogenic intervention. With or without intervention however the Board’s central task is to assess risk. That is clear from the decisions of the higher courts in New Zealand. Once a prisoner has completed the minimum non-parole period imposed by the Court, the Board’s task is to assess whether or not in this case, Mr Barlow poses an undue risk to the safety of the community. The Board is assisted not only by professional risk assessments but by all the other information it has received.
There are complications in Mr Barlow’s case. One complication is the fact that he has recently argued through his counsel an appeal against his conviction in the Privy Council, formerly the highest court available for New Zealanders.
A decision on that appeal has been reserved by the Judges. It is of course irrelevant to this Board at the moment. We have to regard him as having been properly convicted of a double murder. Whatever decision the Privy Council finally makes will of course carry its own consequences.
An earlier psychological assessment in August 2008 rated Mr Barlow as “at low risk of further violent behaviour”. Mention was made however that such a risk would be heightened in the presence of firearms.
At the last hearing the Board decided to seek a further psychological opinion from a senior Psychological Services psychologist, Dr Nick Wilson. Dr Wilson is an expert in the assessment of offenders for characteristics of psychopathy but is, also a highly experienced forensic psychologist.
In his psychological assessment of 13 February 2009, Dr Wilson rates Mr Barlow at low risk of violent offending and goes on to indicate that any such risk is manageable in the community in terms of his proposed release plan.
Dr Wilson had a number of observations to make which are of value to the Board. Some of these will be referred to later.
There was discussion at the hearing with Mr Barlow about the effect on his victims family members. Rather bland assurances were given to the Board by Mr Barlow’s supporters that the family of Mr Barlow’s victims would not regard his release now as being something which might provoke further interventions by them. We have letters however from members of the family indicating their strong opposition to his release. They express, sentiments of outrage that, having taken two lives, he might now be considered for release in the community and they point to the continuing deep distress and damage which these terrible losses have inflicted within the family group. We take that into account as we are obliged to by law.
Mr Barlow is an unusual man. He has an unusual personality. We have had lengthy discussions with him and of course we have the benefit of comments by the psychologists who had spent even greater time with him. Reference is made in their reports to his personality characteristics. He disputes their assessments. He has self justifying answers for every question and for every issue raised.
For example, there is a suggestion that in prison he is seen as a highly manipulative man. He thinks that is unfair and untrue. The comments in the psychological reports refer to him as having a sense of entitlement, and a sense of superiority in both mental and other abilities. Other references are made to him being arrogant, demanding and controlling. For example Dr Wilson summarises his views as follows:-
“Mr Barlow also had in his MCMI-III profile the presence of a superficial elitist interpersonal style that is usually characterised by an internal strong focus and entitlement beliefs. Individuals with a similar style have early experience that has taught them to overvalue themselves. This confidence and sense of superiority may be founded on false premises and may be unsustainable. Nevertheless, they blithely assume that others will realise their special qualities. They maintain an air of superiority, pride, and self importance. However, the self importance is fragile and there is also a constant need for attention and approval.”
He thinks that these statements are not accurate.
In our view however these descriptions of his personality traits are broadly accurate. There are a great many different types of personality traits but in Mr Barlow’s case it is important to point to the nature of these aspects of his personality because they play a part in our assessment.
Mr Barlow has exceptional personal support. His wife has visited him in prison every week for over 14 years. Every day they have telephoned each other. She seems to be an admirable woman. She fully supports of him and was present at the hearing, together with one of his children and his brother. He has been very fortunate to keep this very loyal support. His wife has been outstanding.
It is not unfair however to refer to her as an uncritical supporter. She was asked whether she would feel confident in speaking up if there were difficulties either between them or in any other way following his release. She could see no such difficulties arising. It was for her an irrelevant question. A significant aspect of that discussion was that although these questions were directed to her, Mr Barlow attempted to answer on her behalf on each occasion illustrating earlier observations about facets of his personality. It is of significance because we think that with Mr Barlow, given his intelligence and ability and particularly his quite dominant personality, there would seem to us to be no real chance of anyone within his close vicinity alerting the appropriate authorities if an unsafe situation were to arise following release.
This is a particularly important factor in view of his approach to the question of the possession and use of firearms.
We do not need to go into the details of the offences themselves. He denies them but there are details of the allegations against him which are accepted by him and are common knowledge. He claims to have loaned a pistol to one of his victims together with a silencer. He said that he was lending the firearm because this person was in need of protection. When asked about the purpose for including a silencer he said that was done so that Mr Thomas, one of the deceased, could practise. His view was that it was not envisaged that a firearm would necessarily be used to physically protect Mr Thomas – his rather extraordinary view was that it was enough to have confident possession of the firearm to provide protection. He went on to give us his views about the way in which people in America who had firearms for protection hardly ever used them and “hardly anyone was ever shot”. These comments on the significance of guns and their use are of considerable concern.
There are further matters about the firearms which are equally worrying. Mr Barlow’s bail was revoked at one stage because, although he had been required to surrender firearms, two firearms were found subsequently secreted in his house. One was located in the insulation in the ceiling and one in a grandfather clock. Again he had explanations for which in our view were unconvincing and shallow.
Mr Barlow’s admitted lending of weapons to others “for their protection” would constitute a serious breach of the law. He seemed to be oblivious to that. He clearly thought it was justified. His comment about the breach being on the same level as a speeding ticket was, in the circumstances, breathtaking.
This links to the extraordinary conversation which was taped by Police and formed part of the bail revocation hearing. He is described as using extravagant and florid language in referring to the fact that he had two pistols available on him for protection against somebody who might be threatening to him.
All of this leads us in a particular direction.
We do accept that the psychological reports show him as being at low risk of reoffending. But our obligation to the communities of New Zealand is to decide whether he is at undue risk of reoffending. It is not finally a psychological test. It is a test to be applied using all the information available to us. We are required to be satisfied on all the information we have.
We are reminded also that an amendment to the law recently re-enforced parole as being a privilege not a right. In our view Mr Barlow has not yet earned that privilege.
We are concerned that having already shown that he can be deceitful about firearms and their presence, there is cause to be concerned about whether he would comply strictly with any condition of release not to have any control or possession of firearms. In certain circumstances, we think he could easily find some further justification for possession of a firearm and would have the means of procuring one.
His approach to the possession and use of guns goes beyond mere personality differences. It is a matter of attitude. His general attitude is one of unqualified entitlement. He would, we think, regard himself as entitled to “protect” himself in easily imagined circumstances.
Given the level of uncritical support he has gathered around him we do not see anybody who, becoming aware of any question relating to guns would be prepared to let anyone in authority know.
This is a major area of risk for us. We accept that Mr Barlow has behaved well in prison. He has had no misconducts or incidents. He is AA security. He is drug-free. He keeps himself busy and is well behaved. He wishes to be released to the address he has with his wife and other aspects of his release proposal are satisfactory.
We also recognise that under section 7(2) (a) of the Parole Act we must be guided by the principle that no offender should be detained for longer than consistent with the safety of the community.
We have given thought to releasing Mr Barlow on parole having regard to in particular the other positive aspects of his behaviour in prison, his risk assessments and his support in the community. We have considered whether his future conduct could be the subject of appropriate conditions. But finally we think, having carefully weighed all factors, that having regard to his history and particularly the history of his bail revocation and his extraordinary answers to questions about the use and possession of firearms, which show a completely inappropriate attitude to guns, that this is still an area of extreme vulnerability which poses, in our view, an undue risk to the safety of the community.
We are not prepared to take the risk of releasing him at this time. Parole will be declined.
We do support Reintegrative Leaves for him at this time. He is clearly in the reintegrative phase of his sentence. Release to Work and graduated Home Leaves will be appropriate in a safe planned way at this time. When we next see him we will be able to see whether he has demonstrated greater balance, insight, and common sense in the areas identified above.
|
_________________________ Judge D J Carruthers Panel Convenor |
Review
To apply for a review you must write to the Board within 28 days of its decision giving reasons why you believe one or more of the above grounds apply in your case.