Nathan BOULTER 16/6/2022

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002


Hearing:   16 June 2022

at lnvercargill Prison via MS Teams

Members of the Board:

Judge D Mather - Panel Convenor

Ms T Sharkey

Ms K Coutts

In Attendance: [withheld] - Case Manager


  1. Mr Boulter is serving a sentence of three years two months following conviction on a number of charges of serious violence. His sentence expiry date is in April 2023. He has a concerning history of violent offending.
  2. Mr Boulter's background issues are complex. He has been assessed a number of times [withheld].
  3. Mr Boulter disputes that. Having said that, he was very clear at this hearing that he accepts the need for treatment to address his violence. He is willing to continue engaging with a psychologist. He had four sessions at OCF before transferring to lnvercargill Prison. He has had just one session since then which has been disrupted by COVID-19 issues. A further disruption will occur when he is, as part of a Departmental management plan, to be returned to OCF.
  4. It would be preferable if he could return to treatment with the same psychologist he had, prior to his transfer to lnvercargill. He told us that he was engaging well with that psychologist.
  5. So far as his release planning is concerned, he has been approved for accommodation with [withheld]. Mr Boulter says he is not keen to go to [withheld] accommodation. He is more focussed on returning to live with his family and getting back into work as a [withheld] with a previous employer who will, apparently, again offer him work in lnvercargill.
  6. [withheld] has remained supportive. She does not appear to have been included in the developing opinions around [withheld] before she would consider him returning home and it may be that, with Mr Boulter's consent, she could be more involved and informed around [withheld].
  7. Currently Mr Boulter remains in regular contact with [withheld]. It was of concern to us that he did not consider this was helpful and we note a history of him being noncompliant with medication. Although his offending has been assessed as not being driven [withheld] would raise serious concerns about his stability and hence his risk.
  8. We encourage Mr Boulter to engage as fully as he can with the further work with the psychologist around his offending. The Case Manager told us that if he achieves minimum security at the next review in July, which seems likely, the option is then open for him to have Guided Release to the [withheld].
  9. We encourage Mr Boulter to again consider the benefits of that accommodation which we note is supported by the [withheld]. He may have difficulty in persuading a future Board that a release straight to his family, rather than to supported accommodation such as that provided by [withheld], will adequately address his risk in the immediate future.
  10. We commend Mr Boulter on his positive attitude. At present, until he has made more progress with the psychologist, he remains an undue risk and parole is declined. We will see him again in January 2023, no later than 31 January, when the position can be reviewed and the option of a short period on parole will be considered.

Judge D Mather

Panel Convenor