Andrew Ronald MACMILLAN 27/4/2022

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Andrew Ronald MACMILLAN

Hearing: 27 April 2022

at Otago Corrections Facility via MS Teams

Members of the Board: Sir Ron Young - Chairperson

Ms M Kleist

Ms Tiumalu

Dr J Skipworth

In Attendance:                                  [withheld] – Principal Case Manager


  1. Mr MacMillan, who is 55 years of age, was convicted of murder in 1989.  He had two pages of convictions prior to that involving property and drugs.  Since that time, he has had two formal recalls in May and September 2020 although we note he did have a release to [withheld] in 2000 which did not work out, but which was for a period of three months under a different parole regime.
  2. Arising from the events in 2020, he has two convictions for breaches of parole special conditions, a conviction for possession of an offensive weapon and cannabis and a third breach of parole conditions from September 2020.
  3. As to the current position, we saw Mr MacMillan last in December 2021.  At that stage he had just started risk-based one-on-one counselling relating to the interim and final recalls in 2020.  The hope was he would transfer to [withheld] and at that stage Corrections supported a proposal to release him to [withheld] after suitable guided releases.
  4. As to the current position, over the last 12 months Mr MacMillan had some difficulties with his conduct but, more recently, he has behaved well, without misconducts confirmed by his PCO.
  5. He has finished psychological counselling with some 10 sessions and, as we understand it, he made significant gains in treatment.  The psychologist noted, however, he can sometimes be verbose, superficial, reactive and defensive but those traits, the PCO said at least in recent times, have not been seen in prison. He is assessed at being a medium risk at violent re-offending.
  6. Today, he asked for release to [withheld] who said they would provide him with an appropriate address in May 2022.
  7. The psychological report, however, recommended a rather slower release with possibly self-care, guided releases and whānau huis with his Probation Officer and supporters to avoid the kind of circumstances that arose in 2020 that resulted in his recall.
  8. Corrections, however, recently filed an addendum to the Parole Assessment Report.  That addendum says that on a review of the support that [withheld] can provide Mr MacMillan, they do not consider it adequately meets his current need.  They pointed out that Mr MacMillan has had two releases to [withheld], both of which have been unsuccessful; the first for about 10 months, the second for only a month.  They consider that [withheld] is generally focussed on people who have low risk and low rehabilitative needs and that is not, they say, Mr MacMillan.
  9. Mr MacMillan pointed out that a psychologist had previously supported release to [withheld] as had the Parole Board.
  10. We have decided that release to [withheld] would not be suitable.  The previous support for [withheld] was prior to an assessment being undertaken by Corrections as to the particular suitability of what [withheld] offered for someone like Mr MacMillan.  We accept the proposition that, given he has had two releases there which were unsuccessful and that his two releases by themselves indicates the likelihood of significant support being needed in the community he needs more than the support available at [withheld].
  11. Mr MacMillan wants to be released to the [withheld] area.  There are two possible release organisations there, [withheld]. We encourage Corrections to support Mr MacMillan in applications to those organisations if he thinks they are suitable.  We do think that Mr MacMillan has been somewhat unfairly treated in the sense that [withheld] was supported for a significant period of time and it is only very recently that Corrections have said, for justifiable reasons, that [withheld] would not be the right organisation for Mr MacMillan to be released to.
  12. We will see him again in six months’ time with the hope that he has been able to transfer to [withheld] and that he has had a successful application to the more supported accommodation available in the [withheld] area.  In the meantime, he remains an undue risk.

Sir Ron Young