New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole Hearing
Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Peter Ross MORAN

Hearing: 6 April 2017 at [Withheld]

Members of the Board:

• Judge M Crosbie – Panel Convenor
• Ms S Pakura
• Mr D Hauraki

Support Persons:

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

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Mr Moran appears today for consideration of early release on parole.  Mr Moran is serving a sentence for wounding with intent to injure.  That sentence was imposed on 24 March 2015; he received a sentence of three years six months and a first strike warning.

2. Mr Moran’s parole eligibility date is 10 July 2015.  His statutory release date is 8 November 2017.  He was last seen by the Board on 6 October 2016.  The Board then suggested that Mr Moran needed a plan for the external management of his risk.  The Board noted that he had a strong belief in his innocence and there was a reference to the risk that he poses to young children.

3. Since then Mr Moran was programmed for some six to eight sessions of psychological counselling.  However only one half hour session occurred with the psychologist noting that Mr Moran denies his offending.

4. Mr Moran’s denial remains constant and his family respect that denial.  He proposes to reside with his [Withheld] at [Withheld].  The Board understands that this address is in very close proximity to where his [Withheld] is living with [Withheld].

5. The Board shared with Mr Moran that it had met with [Withheld] yesterday.  The Board heard from [Withheld] about the ongoing and profound effects upon the victim, [Withheld].  [Withheld]  is eight and has significant brain damage.  His cognitive and motor functioning’s are significantly affected and he requires 24 hour care.  While [Withheld] is being cared for as well as can be expected his prognosis remains very gloomy.

6. [Withheld] said that they opposed Mr Moran’s release and they were concerned that any release whether on parole or on release conditions would have him in proximity to young children, including [Withheld].

7. Consistent with his denial Mr Moran has not undergone any courses.  Since the last Board there has been negative behaviour exhibited being described as not respectful in staff.  This appears to have occurred after he lost his job in a [Withheld]. However, he is now back in the [Withheld] and his behaviour has improved.

8. Mr Moran had no expectation of parole today. He was expecting to have parole declined and be seen again preceding the final release condition.  In that regard Mr Moran made no positive representation to the Board that he was ready for parole nor did he speak in positive terms about a release plan or proposal.  Mr Moran’s mood was perhaps best described as surly, that is perhaps consistent with his denial and not wanting to be in prison at all.  The Board understands that. However, the Board can only proceed on the basis that Mr Moran is a convicted prisoner in relation to a serious violent offence.

9. Despite his denial, in view of the fact that Mr Moran has not undergone any therapy or attended any programmes the Board cannot be satisfied at this time that he is not posing an undue risk to the safety to community and declines his release on parole.  Mr Moran will not be seen before 30 September 2017 at which time the Board will consider either parole or setting of release conditions.

10. A further matter is that the Board has concerns around Mr Moran’s proposed address and the proximity of that address to [Withheld]. Given the seriousness of Mr Moran’s offending in relation to [Withheld], the Board would appreciate receiving some detailed advice from Child, Youth and Family as to the department’s view on the suitability of his proposed address being as close as it is to where [Withheld] is living.  This is particularly so given that his family support his denial of this very serious offending.

Judge M Crosbie
Panel Convenor