Jarrod MANGLES - 26/02/2020

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Jarrod Allan MANGLES

Hearing: 26 February 2020

at Rolleston Prison via AVL from New Zealand Parole Board, Wellington

Members of the Board:

  • Sir Ron Young – Chairperson
  • Mr B McMurray
  • Dr G Coyle
  • Dr J Skipworth


  • Mr E Huda

In Attendance:

  • Ms D Davidson – Case Manager


  • [withheld]


  1. Jarrod Allan Mangles was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 2004. The murder was committed many years earlier when Mr Mangles was 15 years of age. After that Mr Mangles had a long history of very serious criminal offending of over 80 offences. It was then subsequently discovered he was responsible for the earlier murder and was imprisoned in 2004.
  2. When we saw him in March 2019 he had completed all his rehabilitation including the Special Treatment Unit Programme (STURP) and the Drug Treatment Programme (DTP). There was a possibility then of a Release to Work, but we recorded concerns expressed by the victims about Release to Work from Otago Corrections Facility where Mr Mangles was, and also concerns they had about any ultimate release to the Southland/Dunedin area.
  3. As to the current position, Mr Mangles is now at Rolleston Prison.  He has, over the period, and since the STURP, completed some but not all of the maintenance for the STURP.
  4. He is a polite compliant prisoner and no further rehabilitation is identified for him.
  5. It is said by the psychologist that he has demonstrated sustained appropriate behavioural change in the prison and is now at moderate risk of reoffending.
  6. Mr Mangles wanted to be released to [withheld] where a friend of his was working and would employ him.
  7. We think an extended period of reintegration of testing in more liberal circumstances is appropriate now for Mr Mangles.  He has had a period in internal Self-Care. He has had time working on prison farms and inside the prison, all of which so far have gone well. But given Mr Mangles long history of violent offending and given the very violent murder he committed, we think a cautious approach to his reintegration is important.  The fact that he has also been in prison now for some 16 years emphasises the need for a cautious approach.
  8. We told him that we wanted him to undertake a period of Release to Work. Mr Mangles apparently has been offered the opportunity of working within the prison on the construction yard, which is seen as a way through to Release to Work. He said in the past that he was not prepared to do so because he did not want to do construction work.  That has effectively meant that he has cut off a pathway to Release to Work. We therefore have encouraged him to spend a period of time working in the construction yard and hopefully then he can obtain release to work.
  9. As to potential release, we have made it clear on previous occasions that we think it highly unlikely that Mr Mangles would be released by any Board in the particular area or near the areas where a number of members of the family of the victim of his murder live. That is in an area from Dunedin south including Southland. The victims also expressed their concerns about release near the Christchurch area. We express no view currently as to the appropriateness of release there. No doubt the Board will want to further consider any possible releases to that area and its potential effect on victims.
  10. It is also fair to Mr Mangles that we recognise some of the frustrations he has had within the prison system.
  11. Firstly, his principal corrections officer told us that when he was transferred from Otago to Christchurch Men’s Prison he was told that he was likely to get Release to Work. That has not proved to be the case and is part of his frustration.
  12. Secondly, although the Board had made it clear particularly at the last hearing that they were unlikely to support a release to [withheld], unfortunately Community Corrections in their parole assessment report noted that there were no impediments to a release to [withheld]. We ask that in the future, those preparing such reports ensure that where their recommendations do not align with the Board’s view, then they provide reasoning as to why. We note that the parole assessment report said that there were no victims concerns or issues in the [withheld] area. That conclusion was clearly wrong. We note that our concern about any release to the Southland or Dunedin area was signalled to Mr Mangles and Community Corrections as early as May 2017.
  13. We are therefore satisfied for the reasons given Mr Mangles remains an undue risk. We will see him again in approximately 12 month’s time, by the end of March 2021.

Sir Ron Young