Hermanus Theodorus KRIEL 3/12/2020

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Hermanus Theodorus KRIEL

Hearing: 3 December 2020

at Rolleston Prison

Members of the Board: Sir Ron Young – Chairperson

Ass. Prof. P Brinded

Dr G Coyle

Counsel:                                           Mr P Shamy

Support Persons: (withheld)


  1. Mr Kriel who is 26 years was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 2010. He was also convicted of indecent assault.
  2. We last saw him in May 2020.  Prior to the May 2020 hearing we had seen the victim’s family.  They believed that there was a sexual element to Mr Kriel's murder.  We discussed that with Mr Kriel. He said there was no sexual aspect to the murder.  The victim’s family had told us that they had information relevant to their belief of a sexual element to the offending.  We asked they  provide the information  to the Board . We made it plain that ultimately we would provide that information to Mr Kriel .
  3. We have seen the victim’s  family again more recently.  They have now provided us with  an amount of material relating to Mr Kriel and his background.  We have recently provided that information to Mr Kriel and his counsel.
  4. Today, with the agreement of Mr Kriel’s lawyer, Mr Kriel and his family, we have  adjourned the hearing until the May hearing of the extended Board.  The basis for the adjournment is firstly to give Mr Kriel's  counsel and Mr Kriel the opportunity of reviewing the material provided to us by the victim's family.  Secondly  for us to refer the information provided by the victim's family to  Correction’s psychologists so that they can review the information and  make an assessment as to how that may or may not influence their risk assessment and therefore treatment need and ultimately reintegration with respect Mr Kriel.
  5. We will therefore see him again, as we have indicated, in late May with the hope that an updated psychological report can be provided and secondly, we can have  information from Mr Kriel’s counsel as to what, if any, of the material provided to us by the victim's family he accepts and what he does not accept.  We may then need to decide how, if at all, there needs to be a resolution of the accuracy of the material provided to us.

Sir Ron Young