Imran PATEL - 12/02/2018
Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002
Hearing: 12 February 2018
at Spring Hill Corrections Facility
Members of the Board:
- Judge J P Gittos QSO – Panel Convenor
- Mr L Tawera
- Dr J Skipworth
In Attendance: [withheld]
DECISION OF THE BOARD
- Imran Patel is a 28 year old man serving a sentence of three years and nine months for copying, possessing and distributing objectionable publications. The Judge’s sentencing notes, and the notes of the two appellate courts which considered the sentence, give a detailed account of this young man’s activities in that regard, from which it is evident that he collected a prodigious number of images of violence emanating from the trouble spots of the Middle East, including such horrors as depictions of Islamic extremists beheading prisoners with knives, prisoners being shot in the head and various Sharia punishment, such as amputations, being inflicted upon people. Many of these were distributed to some 52 other persons using a cellphone and accompanied by comments from Mr Patel.
- Apart from this, he has no great criminal history but we do have on file a letter from the police which details many involvements with Mr Patel where he has been spoken to or arrested for violence or disturbances in public places in one way or another, including an occasion where he was arrested at the airport and his passport confiscated. He quite candidly told us that in respect to that episode he was intending to go to Syria and involve himself in the conflict over there. It is unsurprising therefore that he has attracted the attention of the authorities.
- The parole assessment report indicates, and we think rightly, that mainstream criminogenic programmes are unlikely to be effective for Mr Patel’s type of offending and the recommendation was made that he be seen by a psychologist for one-on-one treatment. We have no report that that has taken place, although Mr Patel tells us that he has seen a psychologist, [withheld], on a number of occasions. Just what that has achieved has yet to be demonstrated to us and without a professional assessment of the effectiveness of this intervention and of the risk as it presently stands, the Board cannot regard the risk as being other than undue.
- We would like to see Mr Patel complete this programme of psychological intervention and for the Board to be given then a detailed report about what has been done and a risk assessment associated with it.
- The risk remains undue. Parole today is declined. We will see Mr Patel again in nine months’ time before the end of November 2018.
Judge J P Gittos QSO