LIDDINGTON - Donald Raymond - 30/03/2011
Parole hearing
Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002
Donald Raymond LIDDINGTON
Hearing:
30 March 2011
at [Withheld] Prison
Members of the Board:
The Hon. M Frater
Judge P Mahony
Professor P Brinded
Mr J Thomson
Counsel:
[Withheld]
In Attendance:
[withheld] – Health Centre Manager
[Withheld] – Manager Custodial Systems
DECISION OF THE BOARD
The Board met today to consider, once again, the question of releasing Mr Liddington on parole.
As noted extensively in previous decisions, there are three significant features about Mr Liddington:
- He is assessed as posing a high risk of sexual offending.
- Has not attended any programmes to address that risk.
- Because he suffers from level 3 [Withheld] he is now [Withheld] unable to address his risk.
Over the past year or so there have been ongoing discussions between members of the Prison Management Team and representatives of [Withheld] District Health Board concerning the funding of and appropriate care for Mr Liddington both within the prison setting and in the community if he were released on parole. In either case he requires 24 hour supervision to manage his risk and medical care to address his significant needs.
Attempts have been made to accommodate Mr Liddington in a [Withheld] in a rest home, without success. Following the Christchurch earthquake, most if not all of such beds in the [Withheld] area have been taken. One possibility which has only just arisen is [Withheld] Home in [Withheld] but whether that is suitable is yet to be determined. We are told that none of the dementia units have single rooms or 24 hour supervision and, of course there is no obligation on a home, even if otherwise suitable, to accept an offender such as Mr Liddington. Another possibility which has been explored but rejected is accommodation in a psycho-geriatric unit. That is not suitable as Mr Liddington does not meet the criteria for acceptance.
Ultimately our concern is with risk. Mr Liddington remains at high risk of reoffending. He has not and cannot address that risk. Accordingly if he were to be released he needs ongoing 24 hour supervision. Currently that is not available. Parole must therefore be declined. He should be scheduled to be seen again in the normal 12 monthly cycle.
Of course if the situation changes and there is a specific proposal for care in the community which would meet the Board’s concerns, it is always open to either the prison authorities on behalf of Mr Liddington or his current counsel, [Withheld], to apply under section 26 of the Parole Act for the issue of parole to be reconsidered earlier. In that regard we note that this is one of those cases where ongoing legal representation by an experienced counsel such as [Withheld] is essential. Mr Liddington is unable to advocate for himself and a welfare guardian cannot be appointed under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act while he is in custody. We would therefore support [Withheld]’s continued funding under the legal aid scheme.
In the meantime the responsibility lies with the Corrections Department to humanely contain and care for Mr Liddington and to continue to explore the availability of appropriate accommodation to manage his risk in the community.
(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.