New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002

Kevin Joseph Charles LITTLE

Hearing: 25 January 2024

at Rolleston Prison via MS Teams

Members of the Board:

Sir Ron Young – Chairperson

Ms K Coutts

Mr G Coyle

Prof. P Brinded

Counsel: Ms R Sommers

In Attendance: [withheld] – Principal Case Manager

Support Persons: [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Mr Little who is 44 years of age was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2007 for the killing of his child. We saw him for the first time today. Mr Little has had no convictions either before or since.
2. The facts were that Mr Little and his partner commenced a sexual relationship and subsequently she became pregnant and the child was born. They began living together.  Mr Little, shortly after the birth of the child, left work saying he was somewhat depressed and stressed. The relationship began to deteriorate and it is said that the child’s mother had asked Mr Little to leave the house. He was in the house and he and the child were having a bath together. She heard the child splashing in the bath, then there was a period when she heard nothing. Eventually she heard Mr Little making grunting noises. She came into the bathroom and the child was face down in the bath.  Mr Little claimed he had slipped while getting out of the bath, knocked his head, lost consciousness and when he awoke the child was dead from drowning. At trial Mr Little pleaded not guilty. The jury were convinced of his guilt and therefore found him guilty.
3. We do not propose in this decision to go through the reasons why Mr Little appealed his decision. The circumstances that led to the jury’s conclusions and the strength of the Crown case are clearly set out in the Court of Appeal judgment.
4. We mention one further matter relating to the facts. In the psychological report Mr Little said that he had experienced "recovered memories" in which he recalled his ex-partner being in the bathroom. He described slipping, being knocked unconscious and reporting that when he regained consciousness "he saw his ex-partner next to the bath with her hands on the victim."  As the psychologist said he appeared to imply his ex-partner had played a part in causing their daughter’s death although he was vague and stated it could have been an accident.
5. Today we asked Mr Little about that comment in the report. Mr Little could not really identify exactly what in his description was “recovered”.  He did remember, and has always remembered, his partner coming into the bathroom and recovering the child. The only part of a claimed "recovered memory" could have been the claim that she had her hands on the child. When we questioned Mr Little said that he was not suggesting at all that the mother of the child was in any way responsible for the death. That observation was somewhat in conflict with the discussion he had with his treating psychologist. Mr Little today told us emphatically he did not consider the mother of the child was guilty of the killing of the child. He maintains that it was an accidental death and that he was not responsible for it.  He continues with his legal avenues having referred his conviction to the Criminal Case Review Commission to re-consider.
6. Today he sought release. He said he could continue the psychological counselling that he was undertaking on release and that he had good support with his family in the community.  [withheld].
7. We accept that Mr Little’s behaviour in prison has been excellent and without criticism. He is currently working with a psychologist. In the psychological report we are told that Mr Little is considered to be moderate risk of violent re-offending. He has just started work with a psychologist. The psychologist said she was in the early stages of determining treatment needs, expectations and processes. The treatment duration was unknown.
8. We think it will be important for Mr Little to do this work in the prison. As we have said to him, currently the Board is faced with the dilemma of a denier. The dilemma is that part of the way in which the Board works is to try and understand why an offender has committed the crime and then to reduce risk, ensure that the treatment the offender has is focused on the causes of offending. then ultimately testing through reintegration. None of that is possible in Mr Little’s case because he denies the offending and therefore it is difficult to know what did drive that offending.
9. We hope the work with the psychologist can better inform us of those questions. In the meantime, Mr Little remains a risk. He is essentially untreated and certainly is not below an undue risk and so with the help that he going to get over the next 12 months we hope that he has been able to progress. We will see him again in January 2025.