It has been another busy 12 months for the New Zealand Parole Board – its fourth full year of operation and my first as Chairman. After a year in the job I am convinced of the excellent quality of the Board’s work.
I visited Parole authorities in the United Kingdom and Europe in the early part of this year and this confirmed to me that the New Zealand parole process, and the results achieved, compare well internationally, particularly in the area of recognising the rights of victims.
Victims issues are an integral part of the work of the Parole Board, and this year we have made a determined effort to work with victim’s groups, notably Victim Support and the Sensible Sentencing Trust, in order to increase our understanding of these issues. This involvement will continue.
A Board hearing is a stressful time for victims. Our role in giving “due weight” to the views of victims is one we take very seriously. Encouragingly, there was a steep increase in the number of submissions we received from victims – up from 327 to 516. We will continue to make this process as straightforward for victims as possible.
Consistency in decision-making is a key issue for the Board and one which requires considerable effort, given that Panel Convenors and Members operate in different panels of three each month in every prison in the country. Tackling the issue requires ongoing work in the areas of information exchange and training.
The Board has continued its programme of biannual full Board meetings, where all Members have the opportunity to discuss just such issues. An Executive Council of the Board has also been established, made up of the Chairman, three Panel Convenors and three non-judicial Members. This meets every two months to address issues arising from the operations of the Board.
Separate committees of the Board have also been established to consider Policies, Information Technology and Training. Already a number of Board policies have been developed and approved and can be viewed on the Board’s website.
These include a framework policy, and policies covering requests for early consideration, dealing with offenders classified as Identified Drug Users, professional guidelines and handling oral submissions from victims. Further policies will be developed in due course.
Training is an area I consider crucial in ensuring consistency in high level decision-making. A training programme deliverable at regional level is in the process of being developed.
Information technology is something in which I see the Board becoming increasingly involved – both involving electronic transfer of Board hearing information to Members, and the use of video conferencing. An initial trial of video conferencing has been completed and further work, involving video conferencing facilities in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch has begun. The future will undoubtedly see this technology used increasingly – as it is in Australia – but there are obviously issues which will need to be addressed along the way.
Jurisdictions in Australia and other parts of the world are also grappling with the huge volumes of paper involved in the parole process. The potential for electronic transfer of information is being investigated. It makes good sense, therefore, for the New Zealand Parole Board to continue its efforts in building good working relationships with overseas jurisdictions, particularly at an administrative level.
To this end we intend holding an International Parole conference in Rotorua next year. The purpose of this is to attract international speakers to New Zealand, and improve contact with world leaders in the area of safe management of prisoners back to their communities.
Two major issues involving the Board remain active, as at 30 June, 2006. The Court of Appeal has yet to deliver its findings on whether the deterrent aspect of a sentence is a matter to be taken into account when considering the safety of the community. This finding, when it is made known, should clarify what is sometimes a contentious issue. The other matter destined to impact on the Board is the New Zealand Law Commission’s discussion paper on parole and sentencing – this too will be a topic of some considerable debate in the coming year.
The Board has worked hard over the previous 12 months to deliver on our pledge to be as transparent and open as we possibly can. The decisions of the Parole Board are fully reasoned and available to both the public and the media on request. Our website is full of information about the Board, with decisions regularly posted.
Board Members have also been active, speaking at various seminars and events and engaging in public debate. It is important that we are visible and proactive in explaining the important, and often difficult work of the Board to interested groups. The brighter the light of public scrutiny that shines on us, the greater our opportunity to explain the workings of parole in New Zealand.
Turning more specifically to the workload of the Board, statistics show there was a drop in the overall number of hearings we conducted - from 8,967 to 8,746.
Of these hearings around 37.7% were parole hearings and 35.4% were home detention. Parole was declined in 72.5% of cases, up from 68.3% in 2004/05. The Board approved more applications for back-end home detention, up from 30.8% to 33.6%. Approvals for front-end home detention decreased from 48.5% to 46.8%.
In 2005/06 the Board held three times as many hearings than in the previous year to impose specials conditions on Extended Supervision Orders. These are the means by which certain child sex offenders are closely monitored upon completion of their sentence. After just two years of operation, this new regime is beginning to bite.
An international problem is that of measuring success of the work of a Parole Board – balancing as it must, the paramount need for public safety against the equally valid public interest in the successful reintegration of prisoners back into their communities.
The international experience is that discretionary release on parole can be at least twice as successful as non-discretionary release but these figures are hard to capture. We will be doing this in future so we can benchmark ourselves against other comparable countries. I believe such figures will support the Board as a very effective operation.
The Board would not be able to perform as effectively and efficiently as we do, without the excellent professional administrative support we receive from Alistair Spierling and his team. On behalf of the Board I would like to record our genuine appreciation to them.
A key relationship for the Board is with the Department of Corrections. Although an entirely independent entity, the Board relies on information from the Department for the quality of its decision making and on the Department’s co-operation in ensuring an effective operation. This co-operation has always been forthcoming and I express my appreciation to the Department for their help and professional service at all times.
Finally, I want to thank to two long serving servants of the Board who retired this year – Judges Dalmer and Anderson. Both made a major contribution to the work of the Board during their long service and their wisdom will be missed. I welcome four valuable new Panel Convenors – Judges Peter Butler, Carolyn Henwood, Patrick Mahony and Ian Thomas who bring a variety of judicial and personal skills to the task.
The Board does difficult work in an environment that is a fertile one for political and media comment. It does this work well. We will continue to do so, concentrating always on the paramount issue with which we are charged – maintaining public safety.
Judge David Carruthers
Chairman