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

Carl Liam MARTINSON                          

Hearing:
02 August 2011
at [Withheld] Prison (via video conference link
to the office of the New Zealand Parole Board in Wellington)

Members of the Board:
Judge DJ Carruthers
Assoc. Professor P Brinded
Mr B McMurray
Mr N Trendle
Mr A Shaw

Observer
Ms N Reynolds for Department of Corrections

Counsel:
Ms [Withheld]
Carl Liam Martinson was convicted of murder in 1994.  The murder occurred when he was 17 years of age.  He is now 35.  He has spent all these years in prison.

Last time he was seen by the Board there was concern expressed about the reason for his appalling offending and the interventions which had occurred to make any changes.  There was also a strong suggestion about the necessity of testing any changes he had made across other areas and times.  At that time also, it was clear that a professional view was that his offending was not really related to serious drug and alcohol problems although they clearly played a part. 

Today we have the benefit not only of the usual psychological assessment but also an independent assessment conducted by Dr [Withheld].  To a large extent these two coincide and there are no serious differences between them.

Mr Martinson has been doing well in prison.  He is in the Internal Self Care Unit.  He has been having shopping outings and is working on the farm under CIE.  He has had some personal shopping visits as well.

He is undertaking one-to-one psychological counselling and this has now moved to a fortnightly basis.

He says to us today that he wants to take things slowly.  He knows he has been in prison for a very long time and has big adjustments to make.  In his case, it is not adjustments to a changing world, but there are also serious adjustments to be made for him because of what is described as a “social phobia”.
 
He will have difficulty making connections again back in the community and leading an ordinary life and he is wise to think about taking that in a slow way.

His risk, so far as sexual reoffending is concerned, is suggested by both psychologists to be at a low/moderate level.  It seems that there is a moderate risk of other serious offending.

The recommendations are for the reintegration steps to now take place but of course this can only happen once he has advanced in his one-to-one psychological counselling and treatment to a point where the psychologist thinks he is ready.  To attempt these before he is ready would be to invite disaster.

It is therefore generally acknowledged that the trigger for the next phase will be in the hands of the psychologist and the work that he is doing with her.

When that point is reached we completely support the usual reintegrative steps being taken such as release to work, temporary releases, any home leaves which might be available to him and other reintegration steps.  It is clear that it will be useful for him to be referred to the Reintegration Team for these purposes.  Ms [Withheld], as his counsel, supports the arrangement of the process where everyone is involved in planning these things.  She says that that is the best way to get results and it certainly will be in his case.

There are no conduct issues in prison.  There is however for him a serious question about social support out of prison but something of that might arise from a successful release to work programme.

All of these things lie ahead of him and there clearly needs to be sufficient time taken for them to be done well.

Although Ms [Withheld] was seeking an earlier hearing, we are satisfied that he should be seen again in the ordinary cycle. 

Parole will be declined today.

If there is any sense that he is drifting in the system or that something else has changed and he is suddenly ready for release, then of course he can apply under section 26 on the basis of significant change.  We have noted that he plans to go to [Withheld] on release and they no doubt will await him arriving there after proper preparation.

For now, parole declined.

(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.