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

Nicholas Iain HAWKER                 

Hearing:
16 March 2011
at (withheld) Prison
via video conference link to the New Zealand Parole Board Office in Wellington

Members of the Board:
The Hon. M Frater
Judge DJ Carruthers
Mr J Skipworth
Mr R Lewis
Mr J Thomson

Observer:
Mr A Hackney for Department of Corrections

Counsel:
(withheld)

Support Persons:
(withheld)

DECISION OF THE BOARD

Nicholas Iain Hawker, aged 32, appears to be considered for parole.

Last time he was seen by the Board was two years ago.  At that time it was assessed that he was unlikely to be released and a postponement order was made for two years.

So this time he is appearing before the Board, having had two years now of work in the prison and the task for the Board, of course, is to assess his progress and his risk in the usual way.

We began the session with him today by reminding him of the views of the victim’s family which are unchanged.  They oppose his release.  They have very strong concerns about his memory of the events which they think is manufactured.  They have very strong views about the likelihood of him being safe to others if he were released.  They oppose any suggestion of day releases.  They particularly oppose any suggestion that he should be released into the Wellington or Auckland areas where members of the family reside.

We have told him of these strong views.  He says he understands those views.  He says again today that he is ashamed and deeply remorseful for what he did.  In particular, he said to us that he now accepts that there was no excuse at all for what he did nor was there any provocation for it. 

Obviously, our discussion with him was about his risk of reoffending in a similar dramatic and violent way.  He says he has now learnt a great down about how to behave and to control himself.  Over the last two years whilst he was on the postponement order he has had a large number of individual sessions with a psychologist.  He has learned from those individual sessions.  His latest psychological report which is dated in January of this year shows him to be at moderate/low risk of reoffending.  But, as the writer of a previous report said:
“… any risk he poses would be increased in the community if Mr Hawker were to return to cannabis use or, in a general sense, experience an accumulation of stress and negative emotion that he felt unable to adaptively manage.  Particular interpersonal contexts that may provide such stress include general social isolation and rejection in the community.  His attempts to forge friendships, particularly intimate relationships, in the future will be times of vulnerability for Mr Hawker and therefore times of increased risk of impulsivity should he sense or experience rejection.  However, due to Mr Hawker’s positive presentation and engagement, and the fact that murder offenders have a low base rate of committing subsequent murders, if he were to re-offend it is considered more likely that this would be a lower severity offence.”

He has a low score on the Psychopathy Checklist:Screening Version (PCL:SV).

He has also completed the Sycamore Tree Substituted Victim Programme.  He says that this was a humbling experience for him and he learned from it.  This is a programme which provides other victims to the prison so that offenders can hear for themselves from those who have been affected what the effects of their behaviour has been.

He has been in Self Care Units now some two years.  He seems to have done well in all this.  He is not noted in any incident or misconduct reports.  He is IDU free.  He has maintained his minimum security classification.

He now asks whether he can begin a process of leaves to (withheld)  which is a very reputable (withheld) and programme in the (withheld) area.  He wants some day paroles and if assessed as being suitable he would like to then undergo the 16 week temporary release to (withheld) to be assessed as to whether or not he is suitable for that programme.  If he were assessed as suitable and he were released to it there would be a very lengthy period of time when he would be residing at (withheld) and undergoing programmes and further testing there.

We have, of course, concerns about Mr Hawker in the light of his violent offending when he was a much younger man.  He is in the 15th year of his sentence.  He appears to have matured and he appears to have responded to the interventions he has received.  The psychological report gives us some details of that.  There are still aspects of the offence itself which concern us but others have expressed views about that.  It seems that he has had in the past a problem with emotional overreaction to situations and that has occurred on more than one occasion.  He says he has now found ways of dealing with that.

We think that a further period of testing what he has learnt without actually releasing him is a sensible next step.  We bear in mind what the victim’s family have said and take that into account.  It would be foolish of us not to do so.

However, the next few months would see him going on leaves to (withheld)  and being tested by the activities there.  We make no promises to him about what the outcome of our decision will be when that period is over but we think it is a sensible next step.  We note that the psychologists say that no further treatment will be offered to him in prison.

For now and today the answer to parole is no.  At the present time he must be assessed by us as being an undue risk of further violent offending.  We need to see him tested in a different environment and against different circumstances.  We support the day leaves and temporary releases to (withheld) and such other temporary releases or leaves which might be available.  This is a further testing period.  In five months’ time we will reassess him.  Again we say no promises are made.

For now, parole is declined on the above basis.


(signed)
The Hon. M 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.