Jono Paul WILSON - 17/05/2016


Parole hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002


Jono Paul WILSON

Hearing: 17 May 2016 at [Withheld] via AVL to Wellington NZBP Office

Members of the Board: 
      Alan Ritchie – Panel Convenor
      Dr S Davis
      Mr B McMurray


1. Jono Paul Wilson age 27 appears for a further consideration of parole on a sentence of 12 years for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, aggravated robbery and other offending.

2. There is a varied criminal history back to 2005, but Mr Wilson has not been in prison before.

3. The prison security classification is minimum, the RoC*Rol 0.69538 and the sentence expiry date is 15 January 2020.

4. On 19 November 2015 the Board noted how well Mr Wilson had done in the MIRP and in the DTU 6.  He became a mentor in that latter programme.  He had then been accepted into Self Care and was awaiting Release to Work.

5. That last Board said that he needed robust release and safety plans with a solid circle of support and observed that there should be a reintegration meeting early in 2016. 

6. The reports since then have been troubling to us.  Mr Wilson moved to [Withheld]  on 5 December 2015 but was exited on 13 January 2016 because of disobeying an order.  We have spoken to Mr Wilson quite closely and carefully about that.  It is fair to say he has his own very clear understanding of what actually happened and has been saddened by the regression which ensued.  In our minds, there is a possibility of some misunderstanding being a catalyst for that situation.

7. Then, on 26 February 2016, Mr Wilson was transferred to [Withheld].  We are told that he made a good start as an [Withheld], but then pushed boundaries somewhat.  The bottom line however is that he is apparently very good when he is busy.

8. Mr Wilson explained to us that he is extremely keen for the planned reintegration meeting to occur.  We support that.  We would also have supported some meaningful reintegration activity including Release to Work, but we understand chances of Release to Work at [Withheld] are very remote.  Mr Wilson is hoping to get to the Residences and then to obtain offender imprisonment in prison.  We would also support that (though probably as second best to an actual opportunity on Release to Work) for a man who has done so well on his rehabilitative programmes and who needs testing in that sort of way.

9. We hope we have not misread the situation.  We have urged Mr Wilson to try to keep his head down as much as possible and to remind himself that things are not necessarily easy as a serving prisoner.  He needs to make the most of any opportunities which are afforded to him.

10. We have decided that we will schedule him to be seen in November 2016.  We would not wish for his progress to come to nothing.  We hope that when he is next seen there will have been developed a very clear reintegrative pathway, including through the reintegration hui.

11. In the meantime, we cannot be satisfied that risk is other than undue.  Parole is declined.  We will, as we say, see Mr Wilson in November 2016 and, in any event, by the end of that month at the latest when we hope a rather different picture will have emerged.



Alan Ritchie
Panel Convenor