Edward ANAND 13/7/2020

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002

Edward ANAND

Hearing: 13 July 2020

at Tongariro Prison by AVL Wellington

Members of the Board: Ms Kathryn Snook – Panel Convener, Ms K Coutts, Mr S Perry


  1. Edward Anand, 71, appeared for the first consideration of parole in relation to a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment for serious historical sexual offending against eight victims.  The offending occurred in Mr Anand’s role as a social worker working at the Dunedin Girls’ Home over a period from 1980 to 1986.  The ages of the victims were 10 to 15.  The offending is described as “brazen and ongoing” throughout Mr Anand’s employment.
  2. Mr Anand was found guilty by a jury.  He continues to deny the offending.
  3. Mr Anand’s sentence commenced on 4 May 2016, he is eligible for parole from 5 July 2020, and has a statutory release date of 4 March 2029.  He has a RoC*RoI of 0.04065 and is on a minimum prison security classification.  There are no issues with Mr Anand’s compliance or behaviour in prison.
  4. One [withheld] has been unsuccessful.  Mr Anand confirmed that he is looking to file a [withheld].  That appears to be because he represented himself last time and also he says there is new evidence.  He has not yet [withheld].
  5. There is no psychological assessment yet because of the inability of the psychologist to meet with Mr Anand in person during COVID-19.  Mr Anand was not willing to do the assessment by phone.  The Child Sex Offender Treatment Programme is likely to be recommended but that is not feasible if Mr Anand is denying the offending.
  6. Mr Anand refused to allow his support to be contacted and currently has no approved address. Mr Anand confirmed to the Board today that he is not interested in completing any programmes because he is innocent.
  7. For today then risk is undue and parole is declined.  Given that a psychological assessment was to be provided to the Board and has not yet been completed we ask that the planned psychological risk assessment be completed.
  8. We note too that Mr Anand’s  denial of the offending appears unlikely to change.  It would be helpful if the psychological assessment contained recommendations both about the optimal treatment if Mr Anand was to accept the offending but also the plans for any other treatment if he remains in denial.
  9. To enable the Board to consider the psychological assessment we will schedule Mr Anand to be seen again by a Board in December 2020 and no later than the end of that month.  The psychological risk assessment should be available for that next Board.  At that time Mr Anand  can update the Board in relation to the second appeal.

Ms K Snook,

Panel Convenor