Jan ANTOLIK (aka Karel Sroubek) - 21/01/2020

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Jan ANTOLIK aka Karel Sroubek

Hearing: 21 January 2020

at Auckland South Corrections Facility

Members of the Board:

  • Sir Ron Young – Chairperson
  • Mr A Hackney
  • Mr P Elenio


  • Mr P Wicks QC

Support Persons:

  • [withheld]

In attendance:

  • Mr T Graham – NZPB
  • Mr E Gay – Stuff
  • Ms A Smith – RNZ


  1. Mr Antolik was sentenced to five years and nine months imprisonment for importing drugs.  He has a final release date of January 2022.  He is on low medium security classification.  The primary reason for that classification is that he is subject to a deportation order.  Mr Antolik has appealed against the deportation order but there is currently no date of hearing for that case.
  2. When we last saw him in September 2019 we asked Serco to review their assessment of Mr Antolik’s risk.  It seemed to us that the assessment of risk had failed to take into account a number of matters that we specified in that decision.  As a result of the referral, the latest psychological report notes that Mr Antolik is now at medium risk of re-offending but with additional factors that could increase that risk.  The psychologist considered that Mr Antolik should now undertake one-on-one psychological counselling.  The purpose of that is to address his underlying core beliefs which drive his offending.  This is of particular concern if Mr Antolik is put under pressure then without treatment those anti-social core beliefs are likely to come to the surface.
  3. Mr Antolik’s counsel before us sought parole.  He said that we should not rely upon a number of the factors that had influenced the psychologist, including Mr Antolik’s Czech convictions, gang connections or the assumption that further imports of drugs had occurred.
  4. We set out in our previous decision the reasons why we relied upon those factors and the degree to which we did.  Of course, it was a matter for the psychologist to assess how significant those factors may or may not have been in the re-assessment.  We do not propose however, in this decision, to relook at those issues.  There is nothing before us that would convince us to do so.  We acknowledge that there is further information from a lawyer in the Czech Republic.
  5. We acknowledge, as we did previously, that Mr Antolik has adequate accommodation in the community.  There were three possibilities suggested.  Two eliminated themselves for various reasons but one is left, which seems adequate.  Mr Antolik does have employment upon release and has a number of people supporting him.
  6. Another issue we raised with counsel for Mr Antolik was the question of where Mr Antolik might be released to.  Currently, that is uncertain.  As to the deportation order, should that order remain in force, our focus would be on the Czech Republic.  Mr Antolik does not have any current plan for a release to the Czech Republic.  The alternative possibility of course, is that Mr Antolik will be released in New Zealand if he successfully challenges the deportation.  We are satisfied that he does have, as we have said, significant support in New Zealand and has adequate accommodation in New Zealand.
  7. As we have said, Mr Antolik is currently subject to a deportation order but has challenged the order.  The point therefore raised by counsel that there is no extradition order in place relating to the alleged offending in the Czech Republic does not seem to us of significance.
  8. Essentially, Mr Antolik’s submission was that he could do any required treatment in the community.  He said that if he got under stress then he would contact the private psychologist who had worked for him to assist him.  We do not think that suggestion sufficiently meets Mr Antolik’s risk.  We consider in-prison treatment from a psychologist is required given the seriousness of Mr Antolik’s drug offending, his potential risks and his core beliefs that the psychological report has identified.  We consider it insufficient to suggest to meet his risk to he would consult a psychologist in the community if he got under stress.
  9. For the reasons given therefore, we decline parole as we are satisfied Mr Antolik remains an undue risk.  Unfortunately, one-on-one psychological counselling by Serco cannot begin until the second half of 2020 as advised by Serco.  We suggested to Mr Antolik, given there was an offer by his private psychologist to treat him in the community, that she may be prepared to treat him on a one-to-one basis within prison.  Serco confirmed that there would be no impediment to doing this.  If that is possible, then we think that would be an acceptable outcome.  We must proceed, however, in the meantime, on the basis that the psychological counselling will be provided within Serco.
  10. If however, Mr Antolik is able to arrange privately one‑on‑one counselling then he may apply under section 26 of the Parole Act 2002 for an early hearing.  If Mr Antolik is to be privately treated by a psychologist then that treatment would need to proceed on the basis of the Serco completed psychological report, including an acceptance of that report’s assessment of risk and treatment needs.
  11. If Mr Antolik applies for an early hearing then we would expect a full report from the private treating psychologist to identify what work had been done and that the treatment was based on the above identified risks.  Mr Antolik would need to consent to the provision of such a report to the Board.
  12. We will therefore see Mr Antolik by the end of November 2020 in the hope that he has completed that one-on-one counselling and has a strong plan for release.

Sir Ron Young