Hermanus Theodore KRIEL 24/5/2022

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Hermanus Theodore KRIEL

Hearing: 24 May 2022

at Christchurch Men’s Prison

Members of the Board: Sir Ron Young – Chairperson

Mr G Coyle

Ms C Tiumalu

Prof Phil Brinded

Counsel:                                            Mr D J Matthews

In Attendance:                                  [withheld] - Case Manager


Support Persons: [withheld]



  1. Mr Kriel is 28 years of age and was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 2010 when he was 14 years of age.  There was also a finite sentence for indecent assault.  His security classification is minimum.  Prior to that offending, and subsequently, he has had no criminal convictions.  His RoC*RoI is now .21.
  2. We last saw him in May 2021.  At that stage, there were a number of allegations relating to previous violence at school or bullying at school which involved him, which he denied.  We put those allegations, because the information had come to us through victim submissions.
  3. Mr Kriel was in a reintegrative phase.  He was in self-care and the way forward was guided releases and release to go to work.  We noted that he wanted to go back to his family in the longer term.
  4. The psychological report noted that the further information in their assessment did not change their assessment of his risk.  They thought that there needed to be some further one-on-one counselling with a particular focus about release into the community.  We indicated that we thought it appropriate that that one-on-one counselling with the psychologist occur in prison before we would consider any release.
  5. Finally, the Board noted the variety of descriptions that Mr Kriel had given over the years of his involvement in the murder.
  6. Today, before the Parole hearing, we saw Mr Kriel’s victims.  We provided Mr Kriel with a summary of their observations and comments.  The one factor that we specifically mentioned is that Mr Kriel had indicated that he would be interested in undertaking a restorative justice meeting with the victim’s family.  We said to him that the best way forward would be to arrange it after his release.  He accepted and agreed that that was appropriate and said that he was “very keen” to talk to the family of the victim and explain to them what had happened with respect to the murder.
  7. Again, Mr Kriel was asked and gave us a description of how the murder occurred.
  8. Mr Kriel has now been subject to the reintegrative service at [withheld] for the last 12 months.  We have a report from [withheld] which indicates that [withheld] would provide six months of help and guidance after release, and longer if necessary.  They had contact with Mr Kriel’s family who they assess as pro-social.  They note that Mr Kriel has developed a safety plan which they support.
  9. A reintegration hui has been held between Mr Kriel, his parents, Corrections and [withheld] where Mr Kriel discussed his offending and his safety plan.
  10. Mr Kriel has been working at [withheld] on the Release to Work system.  That has been suspended over the last few months because of COVID. HHe has very positive feedback from his employers who have offered him employment in the long term on release on parole.
  11. The psychological report observes that there is no evidence of any history of violence in prison.  His PCO noted that Mr Kriel could easily have been drawn into gangs and violence in prison, particularly he came into prison when he was 14, but there was no evidence of any aggressive behaviour during the course of his incarceration.  The reporting psychologist and the treating psychologist believe it important to keep in mind, when assessing his offending, that he was a very young man with an undeveloped brain and his decision making, judgement and reasoning were all undeveloped at that age.  They do not think any further one-on-one counselling is necessary, Mr Kriel having completed further one-on-one with a psychologist to December 2021.
  12. Mr Kriel said that the real value of that work with the psychologist was that he could review his safety plan, given that he had been in the community on Release to Work and had some real life situations that he could talk to and review whether his safety plan adequately met these situations.
  13. We consider it very important that Mr Kriel, given most of his teenage years and a significant part of his early adulthood has been spent in prison, have reintegrative testing to reassure us that the work he has done with the psychologist and the good progress he has made to date are cemented in before release.
  14. Because of COVID-19, no fault of Mr Kriel’s, his reintegrative process has been somewhat delayed but we think the need remains, irrespective of the difficulties that COVID-19 has created.  We want him to finish a further period of reintegrative testing.
  15. In the meantime, he remains an undue risk.  We will see him again by the end of December 2022 to further consider parole.

Sir Ron Young