HITCHCOCK - Anthony Phillip - 02/09/10
Parole hearing
Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002
Anthony Phillip HITCHCOCK
Hearing:02 September 2010
at (Withheld) Prison
Members of the Board:
Judge DJ Carruthers
Judge RM Kean
Judge M Lee
Dr J Skipworth
Mr R Lewis
Ms J Donaldson
Observer:
Mr S Berry
Support Persons:
(Withheld)
(Withheld)
(Withheld)
DECISION OF THE BOARD
He has just come off a two year postponement order. This is the first time we are seeing him again after the lapse of that period.
We began the session with him today by bringing to his attention the views of the family members of his victim. Those views remain the same as they were when previously given to him. In essence, they are strongly opposed to his release. They are concerned about whether the Board has full information about Mr Hitchcock, whether all the risk factors have been adequately addressed by him, whether any change is real change and not just a manipulation and whether he has been carefully and thoroughly assessed. They have been upset by the re emergence of parole which has opened old wounds for them and they are very concerned about safety issues for other members of our community if he were released.
He understands those views.
In prison he has been compliant and well behaved. He has recently attended the (Withheld) which is a substituted victim programme. He says that was extremely important to him. It sparked his interest in having a restorative justice conference with any members of his victim’s family who would be prepared to meet with him. He says he is waiting to hear back from the restorative justice people at the present time and is hopeful that something may come out of it. He is prepared to face any member who wishes to meet with him and ask questions of him.
He has also recently had a meeting with the organisation responsible for his own personal abuse. There has been a formal apology to him about that. From the way he talked it seemed to be rather a non event but no doubt it has an importance in his past.
He spoke a lot to us about his past and things that had happened to him. He spoke so much about it, it became a concern to us as to whether he accepted responsibility for the dreadful acts that he perpetrated himself. He seemed more concerned with the failure of others to assist him at a vulnerable time which resulted in the murder and the offending. We remain concerned about how much he has accepted personal responsibility for that.
We say that in the context that a great many people have suffered appalling abuse as young members of our society but have not gone on to then themselves, offend in this dreadful way and murder someone. His personal responsibility issues are ones which we think remain to be yet clarified.
He has had something over 100 sessions with his psychologist in prison. These seem to have concentrated on his personal issues rather than on his offending behaviour.
He has some health problems at the moment. Today he was supported by members of the (Withheld) and by (Withheld) and (Withheld). He is fortunate to have this support.
He does not seek release on parole today. He asked the Board to approve his next steps which are temporary leaves to (Withheld) and to the programmes available there.
We have given consideration to this. We bear in mind the views of the victims which we are obliged by law to take into account.
We do not feel comfortable about recommending or supporting the next steps until we have greater clarification of some of the key issues that have arisen for us. We have concerns about the content and style of the latest psychological report and the internal contradictions which are inherent in the report and we are going, in the circumstances and because of the nature of the offending which brought Mr Hitchcock to prison, to ask as an exception that in this case there be a psychological overview taken of Mr Hitchcock’s position. We ask actually for two things. We think that a senior psychologist should review the material available already to give us this overview in the light of our concerns but also we think that he needs to be seen again by such a person in the context of such an overview so that we have the benefit of a fresh and different opinion about his risk and about his readiness for the next steps.
We ask that that be brought before the authorities in the usual way.
Until we have satisfactory information about that we are not prepared to support any further recommendations. What is happening for Mr Hitchcock at the present time can no doubt continue because that is a prison matter.
For now, parole is declined and he will be seen again in accordance with the statutory cycle.
(signed)
Judge DJ 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.