MARSH - Gresham Kirsten Leith - 01/12/10
Parole hearing
Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002
Gresham Kirsten Leith Marsh
Hearing:01 December 2010
at [Withheld] Prison
Members of the Board:
Hon. MA Frater
Judge J Macdonald
Dr J Skipworth
Mr J Thomson
Mr R Wilson
In Attendance:
Mr S Berry from Department of Corrections
Counsel:
[Withheld]
Support Persons:
[Withheld]
[Withheld]
DECISION OF THE BOARD
He has spent 16-½ years in custody. He seeks to be released on parole, or at least the Board’s support to take further reintegrative steps.
At the outset of the hearing we spoke to Mr Marsh about the views of his victims. He is aware that they continue to be opposed to his release, now or ever. They believe him to be a psychopath and doubt that he can be rehabilitated. They also remain concerned that, if released, he will seek retribution against members of his own family.
Mr Marsh has read the victims’ submissions. He has also read the letters to similar effect from other interested parties. He is adamant that he does not seek revenge against members of his adopted family or anyone else and is concerned to ascertain the source of the allegation. He says that he has changed, although acknowledges that that change has only come about since he completed the Violence Prevention Unit Programme. He says that he is:
“…. quite aware of the continued suffering of all the people concerned with the terrible things I have done and it is distressing to me to see there is no healing, no closure, no forgiveness, and that this is ongoing for them each year. I can only hope that one day forgiveness will come, in terms of their own healing”.
Mr Marsh says that the last few years show that he is no longer an undue risk to anyone. And we accept that there have been significant changes in the year since he last saw the Board.During that time he has continued living in the Self Care Unit at [Withheld]. As part of their programme he has participated in regular escorted shopping trips and other activities associated with the Unit. He has also engaged in release to work within the prison environment for two building contractors and he received very positive feedback. This work continued until May this year. He has also enjoyed two temporary releases to his sponsors’ home – one in August for six hours and another, in October, for 24 hours. His sponsor spoke very enthusiastically about how these went.
He continued to engage in one to one psychological counselling with [Withheld] until about September, and from April of this year has had ACC counselling, which he has found beneficial.
However, probably the most significant change over the past year has been in Mr Marsh’s behaviour. Whereas a year ago it was described as “variable”, and was sometimes seen as “aggressive, demanding and self centred”, his behaviour now is described as “exemplary”. He is said to be “more patient and mature”. He continues to manage his depression with medication, has not been involved in any incident reports or incurred any misconducts, and remains IDU free.
Notwithstanding all that, Mr Marsh’s estimated risk of reoffending remains high. As the psychologist notes, that will not change until he is able to achieve extended periods of time in the community without incident.
To that end, Mr Marsh seeks to spend more time with his ever-expanding group of supporters. They appear to be good and very committed people. His main sponsor, [Withheld], was recruited through the Prison Chaplain. He and some of the other members of the proposed ‘target community’ have come to know Mr Marsh when they have visited the prison for Church services. They have each offered support in different ways. [Withheld] and his wife offered to have him live with them. Others have offered to have him stay occasional weekends. Others, along with [Withheld], have offered employment.
There are also offers of employment from other sources. Mr Marsh would like, eventually, to make a living from his carving. There is a suggestion that he could tutor carving at the [Withheld], a Maori training provider, and sell his wares at a local market. Apparently the construction companies that employed Mr Marsh on release to work have also offered to employ him on a permanent basis.
However, there is a critical omission from all these plans. That is the involvement of Community Probation. On learning of the prison’s concerns about [Withheld]’s ‘vulnerability’ they declined permission for a 24 hour leave to Mr and [Withheld]’s home. They have also, effectively, withdrawn approval for any permanent release there. For the release plan to be successful all interested parties must work together. The Probation Service will play a key role in supervising parole and monitoring risk. They must be involved in any ongoing planning by Mr Marsh and his supporters for his release, even on a temporary basis.
It is also essential that Mr Marsh’s supporters are aware of the risks involved in supporting a long term prisoner who has offended in the heinous way that Mr Marsh has, and has the criminal record that he does. Professional training in this area is essential.
From the foregoing it is obvious that much more careful work needs to be undertaken before the Board can be satisfied that Mr Marsh will not pose an undue risk to the safety of the community on release.
We appreciate that under the current prison rules, Mr Marsh’s low security classification precludes him participating in either release to work outside the wire or unescorted temporary releases. If he is to be tested appropriately he needs to have the opportunity to take those next steps. We would support an override for that purpose.
But for now, parole must be declined. Mr Marsh will be seen again in the normal 12 monthly cycle.
(signed)
Hon. MA 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.