skip to content Goto Site Search List of available accesskeys Goto Homepage - New Zealand Parole Board

GILLIES - John - 12/04/2011

Parole hearing

 Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002

John GILLIES


Hearing:   
12 April 2011
at (withheld) Prison

Members of the Board:   
Judge D Saunders (Panel Convenor)
Mr R Lewis
Mr RJ Willson

DECISION OF THE BOARD


John Gillies is appearing before the Board for further consideration of release on parole.  When Mr Gillies was last seen by the Board in January 2011, the Board adjourned the matter for further report as to residential restrictions at the (withheld)  accommodation that was proposed in (withheld).  The Board now has some further information concerning the (withheld)  accommodation and the form and nature of the reintegration programme.  On the basis of the information that has now been provided, the Board is satisfied that it is a good proposed as far as reintegration is concerned.  Our main concern has been with what is seen as a high risk rating that Mr Gillies has, no doubt contributed to by the fact that he has in the past escaped from custody and committed serious and violent offences.

Mr Gillies has been commented upon as having been unmotivated to do programmes within the institution and the fact that he was exited from the STURP programme after possession of a quantity of cannabis certainly gives some cause for concern.  On the other hand, the Board does note that Mr Gillies has been well-behaved in more recent times and that he is showing signs of maturity.  He turns 40 years of age next month and appears to be focused upon now trying to reintegrate into the community and to have the support of his family.  Mr Gillies has articulated that he is well aware that one of the factors relating to his offending is his gang connections and that some of his family are, of course, members of the Mongrel Mob.  Mr Gillies has been able to show some insight into the way in which he deals with issues around anger and violence and impressed the Board with his description of the way with which he has recently dealt with a situation in the institution.

In the end, the real question for determination is the timing of the release proposal given that there is still 12 months of his sentence to run.  The Board is satisfied that the work that has been put into his proposal is such that it is able to find its way clear to approve the release on parole at this time rather than in perhaps six months from now.  The Board will approve the release of Mr Gillies on parole on (withheld) May 2011.  His accommodation will be that as put forward, (withheld).  The Board is of the view that he should be under residential restrictions at that address and that that will be for a minimum period of six months from the date of release.  A monitoring hearing will be required in five months’ time at which stage the question of whether or not he moves off residential restrictions and onto partial restrictions can then be considered by the Board.

Mr Gillies will be required to abstain from drugs and alcohol while subject to parole conditions and we note that that has already been seen as part of the rules of the accommodation that he is to be provided with.
 
Special conditions are as follows:
  • Upon release from prison, travel directly to (withheld) and await the arrival of a Probation Officer.
  • From (withheld) May 2011 to 4 November 2011 you are required to stay at (withheld)  at all times unless absent with the prior written approval of the Probation Officer and comply with all requirements of parole with Residential Restrictions.
  • He is to abstain from drugs and alcohol while subject to parole conditions.
  • He is to undertake the comprehensive reintegration package which includes 24/7 contact with (withheld)  staff.  He must comply with all conditions of the rules set by (withheld)  in respect of the accommodation at (withheld).
  • He is to reside at an address approved address and not to move from that address without the prior approval of his Probation Officer.
  • He is to attend for psychological assessment.  He will attend and complete any treatment/counselling as recommended by the psychological assessment to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer.
  • He is to have no contact with or otherwise associate with the victims of his offending, directly or indirectly, without the prior written consent of the Probation Officer.
  • He will undertake and complete an alcohol and drug assessment and subsequent counselling/programme and abide by the rules of the programme to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer and programme provider.
  • To undertake any further counselling, assessment or treatment to address the increased risk of reoffending or to increase harm to others that is identified through the application of the DRAOR assessment tool and as directed by the Probation Officer in writing, including addressing his propensity for violence. 
  • To attend a hearing in October 2011 notified to you in writing and in accordance with any directions given by the New Zealand Parole Board to enable the New Zealand Parole Board to monitor your compliance with your release conditions.
These conditions will run to six months beyond his statutory release date of 17 May 2012.

Mr Gillies will be notified of the date and time for attendance at (withheld)  for a monitoring hearing in the month of October 2011. 



Judge D Saunders
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.