New Zealand Parole Board -

Application for non-interim recall

Under section 60(2) of the Parole Act 2002

between

[withheld]

Probation Officer

Applicant

and

Dean Hugh WICKLIFFE

Respondent

Hearing: 9 November 2017

At [withheld]

Members of the Board:

• Judge Bidois – Panel Convenor
• Mr L Tawera
• Mr J Thomson

Counsel: (if applicable) [withheld] for Applicant

In Attendance:

[withheld]
[withheld]
[withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Dean Wickliffe is subject to an application by Community Probation Office for non-interim final recall order.  Mr Wickliffe is subject to life parole and he is today supported by [withheld].  Community Probation Office is represented by counsel [withheld] and probation officer [withheld].  Mr Wickliffe opposes the application for recall.
2. Mr Wickliffe came before the Board for parole in May of this year at which time it was noted that he had been recalled five times although recognising that the last time was December 2011.  A psychiatric report in April 2016 indicated that further integration work including counselling and self-care was needed which had occurred.  Parole was granted but the Board directed monitoring.
3. On the 25^th of September the Board heard an interim recall application.  The Board accepted that a breach of conditions had occurred but was not prepared to make an
   ex parte interim recall order as it was not satisfied that the risk to the community was undue.  Community Probation Office have pursued this non-interim recall order.
4. Mr Wickliffe has acknowledged through guilty pleas that on the 23^rd of September 2017 he drove with an excess breath alcohol level of 754 and had breached his special release conditions by consuming alcohol.  He received 90 hours community work on both charges and was disqualified for one year one day on the EBA, that sentence being imposed on the 20^th of October, Mr Wickliffe has commenced that sentence.
5. [withheld], on behalf of Community Probation, in subtle but powerful submissions submitted that section 61 (a),(b) and (c) came into play and that subsections (b) and (c) had been made out given that Mr Wickliffe had pleaded guilty to the offences committed on the 23^rd of September.  [withheld] submitted that that acknowledgement indicated that Wickliffe was an undue risk to the community and that there were issues around whether he was manageable within the community.
6. When analysing the circumstances of his offending the EBA in itself involved driver fault, he had a high breath alcohol level, he drove in breach of his release conditions, he minimised his responsibility for his offending and that there were alternatives available to him and in relation to the breach of release conditions he deliberately consumed alcohol knowingly in defiance of his special condition.
7. [withheld] submitted that there was self-justification for his conduct in both breaching his special conditions and the law reflected by a sense of entitlement, he justifies his own behaviour when it suits him, it’s a subjective approach that he exercises and that there can be no confidence that he will not behave in a similar way in the future and therefore the risk becomes unmanageable.
8. Mr Wickliffe acknowledged his offending, accepts full responsibility and apologised for his conduct.  Although it may have taken some time he has reflected on the circumstances of his offending and has given a commitment that there would be no future similar conduct.
9. It can be said that from discussions with the Board Mr Wickliffe has a greater insight into just what his special conditions are and the consequences and effect that flows from a breach and any infraction of the law.  Mr Wickliffe has taken the matter seriously and has engaged further support from community social service organisations for the future.  Mr Wickliffe has been taken through the special conditions to satisfy the Board and his community probation officer that he now has a comprehensive and full understanding of just what those conditions are.
10. In the decision of Miller & Carol the Court of Appeal said, “We conclude that the discretion under section 66 to make that final recall order ought only to be exercised where public safety is an issue.
11. The Board is of the view that this application for recall has been properly brought and because Mr Wickliffe did drive a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and in breach of his special conditions that raises issues of public safety.  The Board however, is of the view that after today’s hearing with the greater insight that has been gained, knowing Mr Wickliffe appreciates his responsibilities regarding compliance, and placing himself in non-risk situations, being more conscious of his high profile and the close attention that he will attract and be scrutinised with, that his risk can be managed with the existing standard and special conditions. A final non-interim recall order will not be made.
12. His existing standard and special conditions will remain in force from May of this year.  For the record those special conditions are as follows:

(1) Not to possess or consume alcohol, illicit drugs or psychoactive substances.

(2) To attend and complete such counselling/programme/treatment directed by your Probation Officer to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer and programme provider

(3) To undertake and complete an assessment by a departmental psychologist and attend any treatment recommended, to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer and psychologist

(4) To reside at [withheld] and not to move from that or any subsequently approved address without the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.

(5) To notify your Probation Officer prior to starting, terminating or changing your position or place of employment.

(6) Not to communicate or associate with [withheld] (co-offender), without the prior written approval of your Probation Officer.