Korrey Teeati COOK - 12/05/2016
Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002
Korrey Teeati COOK
Hearing: 13 May 2016 at [Withheld] via AVL to [Withheld]
Members of the Board:
Ms K Snook (Panel Convenor)
Ms P Rose
Ms S Pakura
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1. Korrey Teeati Cook, 40, appeared for further consideration of parole on a total effective sentence of six years nine months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to deal in cannabis, possession of cannabis for supply, criminal breaches of trust, injuring with intent to injure and common assault.
2. Mr Cook has a low prison security classification, RoC*RoI of 0.676, and a sentence expiry date of 12 January 2019.
3. Mr Cook last saw the Board on 9 June 2015. He has now completed the Short Rehabilitation Programme (SRP). He previously completed the DTU in 2014.
4. We also understand that he has completed extensive [Withheld] counselling over the past year or so.
5. The last Board asked for a psychological assessment of Mr Cook’s risk following his completion of the programmes.
6. This Board now has that psychological assessment. It is dated 4 April 2016. It assesses Mr Cook’s risk as high in relation to dishonesty offending and violence.
7. The report is helpful in the sense that it details Mr Cook’s extensive offending history which is notable both for its length and for its versatility. It is clear that Mr Cook’s membership of the Mongrel Mob is a relevant factor in his earlier offending. Mr Cook became a member of the mob at 16.
8. Interestingly Mr Cook ceased his involvement in the gang in 2000. This appears to be reflected in his offending history where there is a decrease in the seriousness of his offending from 2000 until 2011. Mr Cook rejoined the Mongrel Mob at that time.
9. Mr Cook told the Board today that although he rejoined the mob with, he says, good intentions, he soon was drawn back into the more negative side of mob membership. He said that within five months of rejoining the Mongrel Mob he was the regional president of his chapter. Certainly this coincides with some of the index offending.
10. [Withheld] appeared today for Mr Cook. She told the Board that Mr Cook was seeking a release on parole today.
11. [Withheld] referred to the recommendation of the latest psychological report. That is that Mr Cook attend the STURP programme despite his completion of the DTU and the SRP.
12. [Withheld] said that Mr Cook is unable to complete the STURP because of safety concerns. This was confirmed by the officer who attended the hearing today.
13. That being the case it appears that Mr Cook is most likely to address his outstanding treatment needs via one to one psychological counselling. Paragraph 33 of the psychological report refers to these as including his violence propensity, the need for him to learn adaptive skills to manage interpersonal conflict, and to develop mechanisms that will enable him to mitigate his risk of re-offending in a violent manner in the future.
14. [Withheld]’s submission was that Mr Cook could undertake the psychological counselling in prison once the Board has set a date for his release to [Withheld]. She told the Board that it is likely that a bed will be available for Mr Cook at [Withheld] in September/October 2016.
15. [Withheld] from [Withheld] was at the hearing today. He told the Board that [Withheld] from [Withheld] has been meeting Mr Cook for over two years. A therapeutic relationship has been established.
16. [Withheld] told the Board that it is difficult for [Withheld] to give a precise bed date at this time but the best he could do would be to say that there would be a bed available in the second week in October.
17. Mr Cook’s motivation to participate in the [Withheld] programme has been questioned both in the psychological report and we understand, at earlier times, by [Withheld].
18. As recently as April this year the psychologist noted that Mr Cook expressed a preference to return to live with [Withheld] although did say that he would attend [Withheld].
19. Mr Cook told the Board today that he is now committed to attend [Withheld].
20. Mr Cook said that he has come to that view relatively recently. He understands now that he needs support to build a life in the community as he does feel vulnerable. Part of that vulnerability relates to his recent decision to leave the Mongrel Mob gang.
21. Mr Cook told the Board that he thinks this risk, as it relates to the gang, will be manageable at [Withheld] and in the [Withheld] community. Clearly however concerns remain.
22. We have given thought to [Withheld]’s submission.
23. However we have not been able to determine that risk is anything other than undue at this point. Mr Cook has a lengthy and versatile offending history. He offended on bail in relation to some of the index offending.
24. We have a recent recommendation from the psychologist that his risk remains high and that the STURP programme is the most appropriate programme for him to complete to address that risk.
25. While we understand now that the STURP is not an appropriate programme for Mr Cook those treatment needs remain and risk is still high. We have also had regard, as we must when considering risk, to the length of time remaining on Mr Cook’s sentence.
26. Parole today is declined. The Board will see Mr Cook again in May 2017 and no later than 31 May 2017 for the further consideration of parole.
27. Before that next hearing we support one-to-one psychological work being undertaken with Mr Cook. It is clear that this may take some time and should commence as soon as possible.
28. Part of that one-to-one counselling should include exploration of Mr Cook’s commitment to complete the [Withheld] programme.
29. We ask for an updated psychological assessment of Mr Cook’s risk for the next Board.
30. We also ask for the sentencing notes in relation to the drug and breach of trust offending. If possible this material should include the Court of Appeal decision dated 14 March 2013.
Ms K Snook