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

Nicholas Iain HAWKER

Hearing:
31 August 2011
at [Withheld] Prison

Members of the Board:
Judge DJ Carruthers
Judge R C[Withheld]der
Dr J Skipworth
Mr J Thomson

Observer:
Mr S Berry for Department of Corrections

Counsel:
[Withheld]

In Attendance:
[Withheld]

Support Persons
[Withheld]
[Withheld]   
Nicholas Iain Hawker is being seen by us for parole to be considered.

This is the 16th year that he has been in prison.  He is serving a life sentence for murder He was convicted in 1997.

We began our hearing today with him by letting him know the views of the family of his victim.  Those views can be briefly expressed.  They referred to a history of his threatening behaviour prior to this tragic and dramatic incident and to his history of loss of control.  We referred to the enormous distress, and agony, to members of the family at the loss of a loved daughter and family member and that distress and loss has extended to others, including her many friends.  We referred to their fearfulness of what he might do in future if he were released and to their uncertainty about whether he had been sufficiently rehabilitated.

We referred to their knowledge of his existing temporary releases to the [Withheld]  and their uncertainty about whether that was seen as a successful programme for him to undergo.  In general terms they were opposed to his release for the above reasons.  They did not want to meet him personally in a restorative justice conference.  These are the views which we put to him and which he had heard previously.  He says he understands something of the distress and loss that they have suffered and that he has spoken previously about his history.  He knows that he has areas to be careful about and he told us that he thought the greatest danger for him was in the area of negative rejections which he had been learning to confront.

On his behalf Mr [Withheld], as his counsel, seeks release on parole.  Mr Hawker has been undertaking day paroles to [Withheld] and those were successful.  He is now undertaking the 16-week usual test period as a resident there.  Mr [Withheld] says that that test, has already been shown to be successful and that full parole could be granted now.  Mr [Withheld], says that he accepts that there should be a prohibition about him entering the Auckland or Wellington areas to respect the views of the victims about that.

Present today also supporting Mr Hawker were [Withheld] and [Withheld] and [Withheld], the Director of [Withheld] who spoke about Mr Hawker and his progress there.  In short, her report was an excellent one.  She said that although he is only in week 11 of 16 weeks, they had already made the decision to accept him onto the programme because he had successfully settled there and was a good model for others, behaving properly and doing well within the residential programme. 

She told us that it would be their intention to retain him on the programme for between 12 months to two years and that they would move him into the flatting accommodation they have available and also look, at a later stage, at employment for him.  So, in short, she was confident that he could be successfully monitored there.  She spoke about the programme and the way that there are very regular meetings with the Corrections Department and the way in which they return prisoners to prison immediately or seek recall back to prison, if there are any dangers or risks suddenly shown to exist.  She referred to the success of the programme which she says is at an extremely high rate and she said Professor Newbold who is on the Board of Directors, has completed evaluations.  She says they have gained considerable skills in assessing risk and have not hesitated to arrange the recall to prison if anyone who is disclosing undue risk to the safety of others.  She says they have become very expert in that and that part of their success is in identifying such persons and arranging for them to go back to prison immediately if those defects appear.

She was asked about whether it is possible that those who are on the programme could be there as part of an extended release from prison but not on parole.  She said that that essentially is not her business.  Most of those who are resident are paroled after the testing period.  She has had occasions where others on a rare basis have been on a further period but that seems to be exceptional, rather than usual.

In his final submissions, Mr [Withheld] asks that the Board observe one of the principles of the legislation which is that no prisoner should be held any longer than is necessary to contain risk and he reminds us of the interests of the community in the successful rehabilitation of prisoners.  He says that the period of test has now been sufficient to achieve its purpose and that parole should be granted.

All of this has been discussed with Mr Hawker.  There are a number of questions for the Board at the present time. 

One of those questions which is before the Board at the present time is whether or not if Mr Hawker completes the 16-week period, he can in the special circumstances which apply to him, continue on temporary releases there until he is seen again by the Board in November when a final decision could be made.  We held this decision over to get the answer to our question.  The answer is that it can be legally done.  The offender does not need to return to prison at the end of that period and can, with special permission, remain at the programme in a sense continuing the tests.  We seek that in this case.

What we have said to Mr Hawker today is that we are in favour of his release to [Withheld] if the testing period is successfully concluded but we require that test to run its complete course.  We ask that, following it, he not be returned to prison but continue on temporary release until he is seen by us again in November 2011.  We can then review that period and make a final decision necessary on the facts available then. 

So, for now and on the above basis, the matter is adjourned until the November 2011 Board to be reassessed then on its merits.

(signed)
Judge D J Carruthers
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.