Home  >  Decisions, Statistics and Publications >  Decisions of Public Interest

Graham John CAPILL

Hearing:
28 September 2010
At (Withheld) Prison

Members of the Board:
Judge B Lovegrove – Panel Convenor
Mr A Ritchie
Mr B McMurray    

DECISION OF THE BOARD

Mr Capill waives his entitlement to appear for further consideration of parole having been declined about this time last year on account of his posing an undue risk to the safety of the community without the benefit of treatment as a precursor to release with a lengthy period then remaining on his sentence of 9 years imprisonment for child sex offending. His statutory release date is 27 June 2014. He cannot be released before then unless the Board has reasonable grounds to be satisfied he poses no undue risk to the safety of the community within the, now, 3 years 9 months remaining on his sentence taking account of the nature of any likely further offending, any support and supervision available to him in the community, and the virtue of him going back into the community as a law-abiding citizen.

Mr Capill is a first time offender in prison for egregious offending against (Withheld) over a period of 12 years. Unless the Board is persuaded he understands what brought him to offend over such a prolonged period, and also understands the seriousness of his offending and the extent to which it will not be tolerated by a community entitled to protect itself and those particularly vulnerable within it, and unless he takes effective steps to deal with that or shows how he intends to do so safely in the future, there is good reason to suppose he may offend again against young children.

Against that background, Mr Capill has spent 5 years 3 months in prison affording some measure of justice to his victims and absorbing the consequences of his offending. He is 51 years old. He is Low Security. He is drug free. He is well behaved in the institutional setting. He keeps himself busy. (Withheld). While he is not by any means a well man, his current health is stable.

Mr Capill’s RoC*Rol of 0.11876 notionally puts him at low risk of general reoffending. Departmental psychologist (Withheld) in her more personally targeted psychological assessment report of 14 August 2009 puts him at moderate risk specifically of sexual reoffending. Independent psychologist (Withheld), on the other hand, puts him at low risk of sexual reoffending. Any level of risk, however, is likely to amount to undue risk for so long as Mr Capill’s offending issues centred round offence related sexual arousal, violence, relationship difficulties, and anti-social ways of thinking are insufficiently addressed without appropriate intervention either in prison or, under suitable stringency, in the community. In this respect, he is sentence planned for the Kia Marama Child Sex Offender Programme and is now on the programme which is due to run until later this year with follow-up maintenance thereafter. He has no approved address for release but is working on this.

As things stand, with important work still to be done,  the Board cannot be satisfied Mr Capill poses no undue risk to the safety of the community and parole must be declined. Counsel asks for an adjournment but, with so many uncertainties, the Board will see Mr Capill again in accordance with the statutory 12 month cycle or earlier under s26 if he satisfactorily completes the Kia Marama programme with follow-up maintenance and has a termination report from the facilitators of the programme together with a strong release plan including a stable and safe address for release.

Judge B Lovegrove
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.