Basil Raymond HEAZLEWOOD 18/8/2020

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Basil Raymond HEAZLEWOOD

Hearing: 18 August 2020

at Rolleston Prison

Members of the Board: Judge Gittos (Panel Convenor), Mr J Thomson, Mr C Roberts

In Attendance: Ms T Gebbie (Case Manager)


  1. Basil Raymond Heazlewood is an 80 year old man serving a sentence of  seven years and six months imposed upon him for some 17 counts (many of which were representative counts) of rape, indecent assault and sexual offending against young girls aged under 12 and 12 to 16 and one count of injuring with intent.  This is historical offending which occurred when the prisoner was aged variously between 20 and 23 years of age, 30 and 42 years of age and 40 to 45 years of age.  Thus it spanned a 25 year period.  Offending was against young girls who were (withheld).
  2. Mr Heazlewood pleaded guilty to these offences on the morning of his trial.  He was aged 73 years at the date of sentence.  He has no other criminal history.  As at the last Parole Board hearing, which was on 11 February 2020, he was still untreated.  His position at that stage was that he said he could not remember the offending.  The psychologist examining this has commented that this is implausible given his general cognitive functioning and his memory of other events.
  3. As matters stand before us he is still untreated and has had no further dealings with the psychologist since before the last Board meeting.  He has had no other treatment of any sort either.  He remains in denial in the sense that he asserts that he cannot remember any of the offending.  That notwithstanding, he has had a recent restorative justice meeting with two of the victims.
  4. At this stage he has no approved address and none really are proposed.   The victims are opposed to his living in the Dunedin area and the only address so far put forward is that of his (withheld).  That is unsuitable both in relation to its proximity to a school and because it is contrary to the strongly expressed wishes of the victims concerning location.
  5. At this stage given his attitude to the offending, which may or may not be a sheltering device, it seems unlikely that Mr Heazlewood will be amenable to any worthwhile rehabilitation effort during the remainder of his sentence, which will come to an end on 10 November 2021.
  6. Provided a satisfactory release address can be forward then parole can be perhaps reconsidered, even though there is not any likelihood at this stage that treatment will be undertaken.
  7. We commend Mr Hazelwood to review his attitude to treatment, but in the meantime to make some effort towards putting together a satisfactory release and safety plan and finding an address which will accord with the imperatives of the victims’ wishes as to location.
  8. Parole today is declined.  We will see Mr Hazelwood again in nine months’ time, before the end of May 2021.

Judge Gittos

Panel Convenor