New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

William Boyd MOKARAKA

Hearing: 8 November 2017

At [withheld]

Members of the Board:

• Mr N Trendle (Panel Convenor)
• Ms S Pakura
• Dr J Skipworth

Counsel: [withheld]

In attendance:

• [withheld] – Principal Psychologist
• [withheld] – Senior Psychologist

Supporters:

• [withheld]
• [withheld]
• [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. William Boyd Mokaraka was sentenced to preventive detention on 23 July 1999 following his conviction on various charges relating to three incidents, two of which involved sexual assaults on women unknown to him, in their own homes at night, while he was armed with a knife.    Those convictions followed an earlier conviction for rape in 1991.
2. Mr Mokaraka completed the Adult Sex Offender Treatment Programme at his second attempt in 2013 and has since engaged in periods of individual psychological counselling.
3. When he last appeared before the Board on 2 May 2017, he did not seek parole.  He had no confirmed release plan.  Mr Mokaraka had sought the support of [withheld].  The address had not been fully assessed by Community Corrections. Questions were raised as to the suitability of that proposal.  Mr Mokaraka’s supporters were also invited to focus on where their support lay.  At that point, Mr Mokaraka’s Release to Work authorisation had been suspended.  Further psychological treatment sessions were proposed.
4. [withheld] appeared as counsel for Mr Mokaraka.  Again, parole was not sought as Mr Mokaraka had no approved release address.  Counsel confirmed, what was apparent from the reports before us, that psychological counselling supporting Mr Mokaraka’s progress to return to Release to Work had not been advanced. [withheld] told us that in view of the limited progress, she had commissioned a private psychological assessment by [withheld]. The Board had not had the opportunity to fully consider that report and we subsequently reviewed it after the hearing and before concluding our decision.
5. It is apparent from previous Board decisions that Mr Mokaraka has been engaged on a reintegration pathway for several years.  That pathway has not always been a smooth one for Mr Mokaraka.  From time to time the reintegration work has supplemented by psychological counselling.
6. There have been difficulties with Mr Mokaraka proposing a coherent release plan that has been assessed as appropriate to mitigate his risk.  That risk has been assessed as either at moderate to high or medium in relation to sexual offending and moderate for general offending.
7. The parole assessment report prepared for the hearing advised that Mr Mokaraka’s release proposal to supported accommodation through the [withheld] was not supported.  Reference was made to an alternative proposal, but that had yet to be assessed by Community Corrections.
8. [withheld] report reflected much of the information contained in previous psychological reports, though she assessed Mr Mokoraka as being at medium risk of sexually reoffending.  Her report referred to his current proposal which is that Mr Mokaraka would be supported by [withheld] who attended the hearing. [withheld] submitted that Mr Mokaraka should have the opportunity to return to the Board in three months to allow time for [withheld] release address to be assessed by Community Corrections and for the necessary report to the Board.  We note that Mr Mokaraka’s proposes returning to work for [withheld], near where [withheld] proposed release address is located.  [withheld] report assessed Mr Mokaraka’s release plan as sufficient to mitigate his risk of sexual re-offending if the proposed release address is approved by Community Corrections.
9. It is apparent from several Board decisions over the last two years that the strength of Mr Mokaraka’s release proposal has been an area of concern.  First, the nature and extent of the support from [withheld] has been referred to, and secondly, there have been difficulties in securing a release address that has been assessed as suitable.
10. Those concerns remain. Since the last hearing, Mr Mokaraka participated in a reintegration hui.  We note Mr Mokaraka’s [withheld] did not attend.  The inference that appeared to be drawn from this was that Mr Mokaraka no longer enjoyed her support.  Shortly thereafter, however, it was confirmed by [withheld] that she remained supportive of him when he is released. We refer to this as previous reports have referred to their relationship as characterised by instability.  So far as the proposed address is concerned, it appears from [withheld] report that the relationship between Mr Mokaraka and [withheld] is a new one. Whether the plan is suitable will be assessed by Community Corrections in due course.
11. The psychological memorandum before the Board recommended that Mr Mokaraka engage with psychological treatment and support.  That process should involve his support network and the need for him to engage with them to develop his release and relapse prevention plan. Should [withheld] address be assessed as suitable, that recommendation seems to us to be an appropriate next step.
12. We are mindful of the concerns that led to the multi-disciplinary team’s decision to withdraw Mr Mokaraka from the Release to Work Programme last year.  Time spent reviewing the issues behind those concerns with the Psychologist seems to us to be necessary and would be also of value to Mr Mokaraka’s reintegration.  The Board supports his return to Release to Work for the testing and consolidation that such activity provides.
13. We do not see these activities as being satisfactorily completed in the timeframe proposed by counsel.  Mr Mokaraka will be scheduled to return to the Board in nine months by 9 August 2018.