Jarrod Allan MANGLES - 29/05/2017

Parole hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Jarrod Allan MANGLES

Hearing: 29 May 2017

Via AVL from NZPB Head Office, Wellington to [Withheld]

Members of the Board:

  • Ms K Snook (Panel Convenor)
  • Ms P Rose
  • Ms G Hughes
  • Dr J Skipworth


  • [Withheld]

In attendance:

  • [Withheld] – Psychologist

People Observing:

  • [Withheld]
  • [Withheld]
  • [Withheld]


  1. Jarrod Allan Mangles, 44, appeared for the further consideration of parole in relation to a life sentence for a murder committed in 1987 when he was aged 15.  That crime remained unsolved for many years until DNA evidence established that it was Mr Mangles who committed the crime.
  2. Mr Mangles has a RoC*Rol 0.75093 and is on a low prison security classification.
  3. In advance of the hearing today we met family representatives of the victim.  We gave Mr Mangles a summary of what they said to us.
  4. In short the victims do not want Mr Mangles released on parole.  When he is released they do not want him released south of Dunedin.
  5. In addition the victims remain concerned that although Mr Mangles has completed an intensive programme he appears to still be hiding behind his claim that he does not remember whether he committed the offence or not.  They are sceptical about this because it appears from the material they have seen that he can remember other things from his youth.
  6. The victims wanted the Board to ask Mr Mangles why he was there on the night of the offending and what happened to the victim’s garnet ring.
  7. The Board saw Mr Mangles last on 20 January 2016.  Since then he has successfully completed the intensive group treatment programme for violent offenders, namely the Special Treatment Unit Rehabilitation Programme (STURP).  He graduated from that in July 2016.
  8. We have seen both the treatment report from the treating psychologist and a psychological assessment of Mr Mangles’ risk following his completion of that programme.  The psychological risk assessment is dated 4 May 2017.
  9. In short during the STURP Mr Mangles is considered to have made progress on a number of his offence-related risk factors.  The report says that due to Mr Mangles’ reported memory loss in relation to the murder a complete understanding of the factors that led to that crime was not possible.
  10. However Mr Mangles was observed to be able to identify factors that have led to his use of violence, including his thinking styles, mistrust of others, his hostility towards authority and a lack of consideration for the consequences of his actions.
  11. During the programme Mr Mangles was seen to change some of the attitudes and behaviour that sustained his violent lifestyle in the past.
  12. Since returning to [Withheld] Mr Mangles’ behaviour and attitude is described by staff as significantly improved.  He is seen to initiate interactions with staff, request support and advice (and heed that advice) and interact well with other prisoners in the Self Care Unit.
  13. Mr Mangles is working outside the wire on [Withheld] on GPS monitoring.  He is described by his instructor [Withheld] as a “different man”.  He was said by the officer today to be unique in the prison system for completing his level 3 agricultural unit standard.
  14. Mr Mangles spoke well to the Board.  He said he struggled with the STURP programme and said he had to work hard to get through the programme.
  15. Mr Mangles talked to the Board about some of the skills he learnt.  This includes being better at communication rather than resorting to anger or aggression.
  16. Mr Mangles told the Board that he still cannot remember the index offending.  He did say that he has a picture in his mind but he is not sure if it is influenced by TV or police evidence.  Mr Mangles suffered a head injury in 1999 and attributes that to his memory loss.  Mr Mangles said that the only explanation he has for why he was at the house was that it must have been for a burglary as that was what he was doing at that time in his life.
  17. We did spend some time talking to Mr Mangles about his acceptance of responsibility for the offending.  It is fair to say we were troubled by some of his responses.  At one point Mr Mangles appeared to say that he wished he had not pleaded guilty.  While he accepts that his DNA was present he appeared to resile from full acceptance that this means that he must have committed the offending.
  18. The psychological assessment concludes that Mr Mangles’ risk remains high for violent offending.  There is a recommendation that one-to-one psychological treatment be completed.  This would have the aim of further developing Mr Mangles’ relapse and safety plan.  At this time it is seen to lack depth and focuses on avoidance.
  19. Mr Mangles also needs to develop a strong release proposal.  We talked to him today about the need for this to be away from Dunedin and the Southland region given the concerns of the victim as relayed to him today.  This may cause some difficulties for Mr Mangles given that his new sponsor is in the local area.
  20. [Withheld] appeared today for Mr Mangles. She told the Board Mr Mangles was not seeking a release on parole.  She pointed to the issue that Mr Mangles faces in terms of reintegration.  For reasons that are not entirely clear it appears that Mr Mangles requires a double-override before his security classification can be reduced to minimum.  It would be necessary for his classification to be minimum before he could participate in the reintegration which is recommended by the psychologist.
  21. The psychologist says that successful release and reintegration into the community would be more likely achieved if Mr Mangles had the opportunity to participate in a structured and gradual reintegration.
  22. For today risk remains undue and parole is declined.  It was not sought.  We will schedule Mr Mangles to be seen again by a Board in March 2019 and no later than the end of that month.
  23. As noted above we were concerned about Mr Mangles’ responses to some of our questions regarding what he accepts in terms of his responsibility for the index offending.  We ask that the one-to-one psychological treatment that is recommended focus on this issue as well as the further development of his safety and release plan.
  24. We also support a gradual reintegration pathway for Mr Mangles as recommended by the psychologist.  This of course has to be in accordance with normal prison criteria.  In our view, given the concerns of the victim, it may well be to Mr Mangles’ advantage if he is transferred to another prison to develop his release proposal from there as well as his reintegration pathway.  We talked to him about the possibility of a release into a residential programme such as the [Withheld] and that may be one possibility.
  25. When we see Mr Mangles again we ask for an updated psychological assessment which takes account of the further work he has been able to complete and which assesses his revised relapse and safety plan as well as his release proposal.

Ms K Snook
Panel Convenor