CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v WILSON [2022] NZHC 1148

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v WILSON [2022] NZHC 1148 [24 May 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECRI-2021-409-138[2022] NZHC 1148IN THE MATTER OF an application for an Extensive SupervisionOrder with Intensive Monitoring and anInterim Supervision OrderBETWEEN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENTOF CORRECTIONSApplicantAND CALIB WILSONRespondentHearing: 10 May 2022(Further submissions received 16 May 2022 from the applicantand 20 May 2022 from the respondent)Appearances: P A Currie for ApplicantM Starling for RespondentJudgment: 24 May 2022JUDGMENT OF MANDER J[Redacted]This judgment was delivered by me on 24 May 2022 at 11.30 ampursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate: .[1] The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (the Chief Executive)has applied for an extended supervision order (ESO) to be made with respect toMr Calib Wilson.1 The Chief Executive also applies for Mr Wilson to be made subjectto intensive monitoring.2[2] Mr Wilson accepts he is an eligible offender and meets the criteria for an ESO,which he concedes should be for a period of 10 years. Additionally, he consents to anorder being made for intensive monitoring over the first 12-month period of the ESO.While Mr Wilson does not oppose the making of the orders, it is necessary I besatisfied the statutory requirements for the making of such orders are met and it isappropriate for him to be made subject to an ESO.[3] I have read the material filed by the Chief Executive in support of theapplication, including the report of a registered clinical psychologist, AmandaRichards. Having reviewed that information and the submissions filed in support ofthe application by Ms Currie, who appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive, I amsatisfied an ESO should be made for a period of 10 years and that Mr Wilson be subjectto intensive monitoring of no longer than 12 months.Relevant background[4] Mr Wilson is 23 years old. He had been living in Australia since his latechildhood but was deported back to New Zealand at the age of 18 years. It appearshis Australian visa was cancelled due to convictions for sexual offending involvingminors. Mr Wilson first came to the attention of the Youth Justice authorities in 2013,at the age of 13 years, when he was found to have had "indecent dealings" with a childunder 13 years. Between 2013 and 2016 he accrued 13 further convictions for sexualoffending. These offences included indecent dealings with a child under 13,possessing child sexual exploitation material and producing child exploitationmaterial. In relation to his offending with a child under 13, Mr Wilson is reported tohave begun abusing his victim, who was a four-year-old [redacted], from when he wasapproximately 12 years old. He also disclosed having offended against a seven-year-1 Parole Act 2002, s 107F.2 Section 107IAB.old male [redacted] when he was about 13 years.[5] Mr Wilson was placed in state care at the age of 16 years with oversight fromthe Sexual Offender Management Squad. After his return to this country, Mr Wilsonwas convicted of possession of objectionable publications and indecentcommunication with a young person in February 2020. The material found in hispossession was extensive and included videos depicting penetrative sexual activitybetween children and adults, bestiality and sadism. He was sentenced to a total termof two years, eight months' imprisonment and released from prison on 3 November2021. He is presently on release conditions which expire on 9 June 2022 and iscurrently subject to an interim supervision order (ISO) made by this Court on30 November last year.3The application[6] The application is filed pursuant to s 107F of the Act:107F Chief executive may apply for extended supervision order(1) The chief executive may apply to the sentencing court for an extendedsupervision order in respect of an eligible offender,—(a) where the offender is subject to a sentence of imprisonment,at any time before the later of—(i) the sentence expiry date of the sentence to which theoffender is subject that has the latest sentence expiry date,regardless of whether that sentence is for a relevant offence;and(ii) the date on which the offender ceases to be subject toany release conditions; or(b) where the offender is subject to an extended supervisionorder, at any time before the expiry of the order; or(2) An application under this section must be accompanied by a report bya health assessor (as defined in section 4 of the Sentencing Act 2002).(2A) Every health assessor's report must address one or both of thefollowing questions:3 Chief Executive of Department of Corrections v Wilson [2021] NZHC 3239; and Chief Executiveof Department of Corrections v Wilson [2021] NZHC 3325.(a) whether—(i) the offender displays each of the traits andbehavioural characteristics specified in section 107IAA(1);and(ii) there is a high risk that the offender will in futurecommit a relevant sexual offence:(b) whether—(i) the offender displays each of the behaviouralcharacteristics specified in section 107IAA(2); and(ii) there is a very high risk that the offender will in futurecommit a relevant violent offence.Eligibility[7] It is not disputed that Mr Wilson qualifies as an eligible offender unders 107C(1)(a) of the Act. He was made subject to a determinate sentence ofimprisonment for indecent communication with a young person and possession ofobjectionable material. The possession of objectionable material qualified as a"relevant offence" under s 107B. As noted, he remains subject to release conditionsrelating to that sentence of imprisonment.The test[8] Before a court may make an ESO it must be satisfied of the matters set out ins 107I which relevantly provides:107I Sentencing court may make extended supervision order(1) The purpose of an extended supervision order is to protect membersof the community from those who, following receipt of a determinatesentence, pose a real and ongoing risk of committing serious sexualor violent offences.(2) A sentencing court may make an extended supervision order if,following the hearing of an application made under section 107F, thecourt is satisfied, having considered the matters addressed in thehealth assessor's report as set out in section 107F(2A), that—(a) the offender has, or has had, a pervasive pattern of serioussexual or violent offending; and(b) either or both of the following apply:(i) there is a high risk that the offender will in futurecommit a relevant sexual offence:(ii) there is a very high risk that the offender will in futurecommit a relevant violent offence.(emphasis added)[9] In Mr Wilson's case, I must be satisfied, after having considered the mattersaddressed in the health assessor's report that:(a) he has, or has had, a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending; and(b) there is a high risk that he will in future commit a relevant sexualoffence.Pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending[10] A pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending denotes a pattern of behaviourthat is characteristic of the offender such that it will serve as a predictor of futurebehaviour.4 What should be considered serious sexual offending will involve anevaluation of the quality and degree of the offender's conduct viewed against thestatutory purpose of protecting the community from those who pose a real and ongoingrisk of such offending.5[11] By the age of 10 years, Mr Wilson was already accessing pornography on theinternet and engaging in sexualised behaviour. He is described at that young age asbeing drawn to children who were much younger than himself, and disclosed toMs Richards his own early experiences of sexual abuse. He describes having enjoyedthese experiences, and that this led him to believe there was no difficulty with beingsexual with young children. As is apparent from his Youth Justice history, hecontinued to offend against young children and became obsessed with child sexual4 Kiddell v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2019] NZCA 171 at [23]; and ChiefExecutive of the Department of Corrections v Ihimaera [2017] NZHC 2228.5 Kiddell v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, above n 4, at [21] and [22]; Hollandv Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 161, [2018] 1 NZLR 771 at[13].exploitation material. This offending, which ultimately resulted in his deportationfrom Australia, was the product of his sexual preoccupation which, despite intensivecommunity supervision and a requirement that he engage in offence-related treatment,has persisted.[12] Mr Wilson divulged to Ms Richards the sexual offending in which he hasengaged occurred much more frequently, and was more intrusive from a younger agethan he has been formally held responsible for. He provided details of offendingagainst other victims which involved increased levels of coercion, including the useof force and threats of violence. While the index offences do not involve physicalcontact, when set against Mr Wilson's deviant sexual preoccupation I consider theymust be considered serious. Notable aggravating features of the objectionablepublications found in his possession include the volume of that material and that it fellwithin the most serious category of material of that type. As the sentencing Judgerecognised when sentencing Mr Wilson, such offending is not victimless. Each imageinvolves the sexual exploitation of a child.6[13] Having regard to the period over which Mr Wilson's preoccupation withharmful sexual behaviour has persisted; his offending against a number of very youngvictims; and his negligible ability to regulate himself without close supervision, I amsatisfied there exists a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending that is an accuratemarker of his likely future behaviour.Risk of Mr Wilson committing a relevant sexual offence in the future[14] A court may only be satisfied there is high risk of Mr Wilson committing arelevant sexual offence if it is satisfied he meets the criteria in s 107IAA, whichrelevantly provides:107IAA Matters court must be satisfied of when assessing risk(1) A court may determine that there is a high risk that an eligible offenderwill commit a relevant sexual offence only if it is satisfied that theoffender—6 Police v Wilson [2020] NZDC 6471 at [14], citing Webb v R [2016] NZHC 2966 at [54].(a) displays an intense drive, desire, or urge to commit a relevantsexual offence; and(b) has a predilection or proclivity for serious sexual offending;and(c) has limited self-regulatory capacity; and(d) displays either or both of the following:(i) a lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse forpast offending:(ii) an absence of understanding for or concern about theimpact of his or her sexual offending on actual orpotential victims.[15] For the purpose of assessing these statutory criteria, I have the benefit ofMs Richards' psychological assessment of Mr Wilson. Ms Richards interviewedMr Wilson and reviewed his prison and psychological records. In addition, she spokewith a Kia Marama psychologist involved in his treatment and, with his permission,accessed the prison medical file and spoke with people close to him, including hismother and two uncles. Ms Richards also had access to Mr Wilson's Australianrecords.Demonstration of intense drive, desire or urge to commit acts of violence[16] Mr Wilson is described by Ms Richards as presenting with sexual deviance thathe has been unable to resist and has not been adequately able to restrain, either throughtreatment, extensive support, supervision or other oversight. He has committed bothcontact and non-contact sexual offences, the former being marked by their intrusivenature. It is noted his offending has involved manipulation, deceit, grooming,intimidation and aggressive behaviours, to gain and maintain access to his victims.Despite being imprisoned, Mr Wilson has engaged in offence-paralleling behaviour,including actively seeking out and creating new deviant sexual material. He isdescribed by Ms Wilson as presenting with a high level of sexual preoccupation thatpervades his lifestyle.[17] While most recently Mr Wilson has committed non-contact sexual offences,Ms Richards opines that he presents with an intense desire and urge to commit arelevant sexual offence which she considers would be acute should he have easy accessto potential victims.Predilection or proclivity for serious sexual offending[18] Mr Wilson has engaged in repetitive sexual offending over a considerableperiod, demonstrating a preference for pre-pubescent children throughout much of hisadolescent and young adult life. Despite various sanctions and interventions hisinterest in deviant material has persisted, which reflects its enduring nature.Notwithstanding an increased level of awareness of the effect of his behaviour bothon himself and his victims, this deviant sexual preference predominates. It isMs Richards' opinion that Mr Wilson has demonstrated a clear preference andproclivity for serious sexual offending.The offender's self-regulatory capacity[19] Mr Wilson's difficulty with regulating his behaviour is described aslongstanding and dates back to his early childhood when he developed a reliance uponsexual behaviours "to self-sooth[e] and manage life challenges and adversities".Mr Wilson is described as presenting with "an obsessional focus on sex"; and one thathe has acknowledged he is unable to control. While in the therapeutic community atKia Marama, Mr Wilson was reported as being better able to regulate his behaviourfor short periods of time, free of the pressures of independent living and with thebenefit of support and guidance. Ms Richards opines that Mr Wilson has enduringdeficits in his self-regulatory capacity.The acceptance of responsibility and remorse for past offending[20] In the past, Mr Wilson has denied his sexual offending behaviour but it is notedthat more recently he has been prepared to take accountability by acknowledging thatsuch behaviours have occurred. However, Ms Richards has expressed concern thatMr Wilson continues to minimise the harm caused to his victims and appears to stillhave little remorse for his conduct. While Mr Wilson has expressed his understandingof his victim's likely experiences as a result of his offending, this is interpreted byMs Richards as the likely product of an awareness of a socially acceptable responsegiven his continued indulgence with sexual deviant material. It is suggestedMr Wilson's self-reported difficulties in relating to and understanding others hasreduced his capacity to appreciate the gravity of his behaviour on others. InMs Richards' opinion, Mr Wilson's acceptance of responsibility and expressedremorse for past offending is not sufficient to protect against him engaging in sexualoffending the future.The offender's understanding or concern about the impact of their sexual offending onactual or potential victims[21] In Ms Richards opinion the unrepentant nature of Mr Wilson's sexualbehaviour, even within the controlled restraints of incarceration, strongly suggests thatwhatever understanding he may have of the harm he has caused, and that has beencaused by others in the material he accesses, has not been sufficient to prevent himfrom continuing to offend. While he is able to articulate the negative effects of sexualabuse, this is not consistent with his own response to sexual trauma, the memories ofwhich he describes with pleasure and "connectedness". Together with his self-reported level of emotional disconnect with others, Ms Richards believes Mr Wilsonhas only developed a learned repertoire of appropriate social responses in regard to hissexual offending. She is of the opinion he continues to demonstrate limited capacityto understand or express concern for the impact of his conduct on victims.Other relevant considerations[22] Actuarial instruments were used by Ms Richards to evaluate the riskMr Wilson presents of committing serious sexual offences in the community. Usingthe STATIC-99R, which is an internationally recognised measure of the static factorsassociated with the risk of sexual recidivism, Mr Wilson was placed in the 99thpercentile — the highest risk category. The violence risk scale – sexual offenceversion (VRS:SO) assesses both static and dynamic risk factors. Mr Wilson was againassessed as being in the highest risk category level. Across the three dynamic subscalescores of the VRS:SO, Mr Wilson had a score similar to those found in the 98thpercentile for the sexual deviant subscale; the 97th percentile for the criminalitysubscale and the 93rd percentile for the treatment responsivity subscale. Those resultswere consistent with Ms Richards' clinical observation and indicated Mr Wilson'soffending was driven by both his sexual deviance and his disregard for the rights ofothers, with limited evidence he is amenable to change.[23] The psychopathy checklist: screening version (PCL:SV) was also administeredby Ms Richards. Mr Wilson's score was found to be above average for New Zealandoffenders. High scores on the PCL:SV are predictive of high rates of re-offending and,when combined with sexual deviance, are associated with an increased risk of sexualoffending. The personality traits and behaviours that are associated with a high scoreare likely to be a barrier to an individual's ability to change.[24] Overall, non-contact sexual offending is assessed as a probable eventuality forMr Wilson. Future sexual offending may also include acts of indecent exposurethrough to contact sexual offences of an intrusive nature, involving force.Ms Richards opines the risk of Mr Wilson engaging in further contact offences wouldescalate significantly should he have easy and unsupervised access to prepubescentchildren, or other vulnerable male or female persons. Mr Wilson is said to be likelyto ignore the impact of his offending on his victims in pursuit of his own goals andsexual gratification.[25] Other factors that are said to contribute to the risk Mr Wilson presents are hispoor social awareness, communication and social behaviour. Ms Richards opines thattraits of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) have contributed to Mr Wilson developingnon-normative sexual behaviours. Inherent sensory hypersensitivities, difficulties inregulating emotions and perceiving social and emotional cues have likely led him toexperience his own sexual abuse as pleasurable and calming, and as a way to connectemotionally with others. However, his deficits in empathetic engagement and lack oftreatment progress are considered to be in excess of what would be considered typicalof ASD and are not fully captured by these criteria.[26] Mr Wilson's engagement in deceitful and manipulative behaviour is describedas showing an intentional disregard for the rights of others. This together with hisresistance to and poor motivation to change, and a predominant egocentricity, arelikely to be the result of deficits consistent with his high score on the PCL:SV. It isnotable that Mr Wilson, despite receiving extensive individual and group treatmentacross a number of years, has made only extremely limited progress despite theamount of that treatment and its intensity.[27] In terms of the endurability of the risk Mr Wilson presents, it is noted thatMr Wilson's sexual deviant interests and sexual compulsivity started in his early teensand has persisted seemingly unabated since. He is described as having only madelimited gains from engagement in treatment. It is considered the sexual offending riskhe presents is likely to remain in the long-term.Summary[28] Mr Wilson is assessed as exhibiting enduring sexual compulsivity and sexuallydeviant preferences. He is considered to have enduring deficits in self-regulation andto have developed a reliance on sexually deviant gratification to overcome and copewith adversity in his life. Although he is likely to resort to objectionable material orto indecently expose himself in order to express his deviant sexual preference, it isMs Richards' opinion that his risk of committing further contact offences is acuteshould he be left unsupervised in the community and able to access the company ofchildren or vulnerable persons. He is assessed as having limited understanding of orconcern regarding the harm to his victims.[29] While not formally diagnosed, he presents with traits of ASD and severepersonality dysfunction which are enduring factors that are likely to exacerbate therisk he presents. Despite intensive treatment, his motivation to implement knowledgeand skills, that he is able to articulate at a superficial level, to prevent further offendingis considered "extremely low". He is described as requiring a high level of monitoringand support in order for his risk to be managed in the community.Conclusion[30] I am satisfied on the information provided to the Court that Mr Wilson has apervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and there is a high risk he will in futurecommit a relevant sexual offence. Mr Wilson has a history of sexual offending whichdates back to when he was a young teenager. Despite treatment, his enduring deficitsin self-regulation and deep deviant sexual preferences, coupled with certainpsychological traits, means he is at serious risk of re-offending given his presentinability to manage the risk he presents without external monitoring and management.I am therefore satisfied he should be made subject to an ESO.The length of the order[31] The ESO may not exceed 10 years. However, its length must be the minimumperiod required for the purpose of the safety of the community. Mr Wilson does notdispute that a 10-year period, as sought by the Chief Executive, is appropriate.[32] As already noted, Ms Richards observed that Mr Wilson's sexually deviantinterests and sexual compulsivity have their onset in his early teens and have persistedover half his lifetime. The gains he has made from engagement in treatment have beenlimited, combined with his personality and neurodevelopmental challenges,Mr Wilson's estimated sexual offending risk is considered likely to endure in thelonger term[33] Ms Richards has noted that Mr Wilson will require significant oversight andsupport upon his release into the community, which will ideally involve a multi-disciplinary approach to mitigate the risk he presents. Skilled individuals will need towork with him to manage that risk and an understanding of his complex presentation,including the synergy between ASD and his personality dysfunction. They will alsoneed to be aware of Mr Wilson's capacity to provide socially acceptable responseswhile engaging in more covert behaviour.[34] For the reasons I have traversed and consistent with the professional opinionof the risk Mr Wilson presents to the community which will remain for the foreseeablefuture, I am satisfied there is a continuing long-term need for him to be managed andsupervised. As a result, I accept it is appropriate for the ESO to be made for a periodof 10 years. Should Mr Wilson take the view that he ought not during the 10-yearperiod be further subject to the order, he may apply to the Court for the cancellationof the ESO on the basis he is no longer likely to commit a relevant offence.77 Parole Act, s 107M.Intensive monitoring[35] The Chief Executive also seeks an accompanying order that Mr Wilson besubject to an intensive monitoring condition.8 Such an order requires the offender tobe accompanied and monitored for up to 24 hours a day by an individual approved toundertake person-to-person monitoring.9[36] There is no statutory test for the imposition of intensive monitoring, norguidance as to the approach to be taken, other than that the maximum duration mustnot be longer than 12 months.10 When making an ESO the court may not make anintensive monitoring condition more than once, even should the offender be subject ofrepeated ESOs.11 However, it will only be imposed when the risk is considered to behigh and where offenders are considered to need significant external controls tomitigate their risk.[37] Mr Wilson does not oppose the making of an intensive monitoring order.However, an issue arises regarding the length of such a condition. Mr Wilson ispresently the subject of an interim supervision order that includes a special conditionthat he be subject to intensive monitoring.12 That interim supervision order andaccompanying intensive monitoring condition was imposed on 30 November 2021. Itwas initially submitted any further intensive monitoring must be adjusted to accountfor the period Mr Wilson has already been subject to intensive monitoring because themaximum duration of such a condition is 12 months and intensive monitoring mayonly be imposed once.[38] I do not accept that, because an intensive monitoring condition was imposedfor the purposes of an interim supervision order, another intensive monitoringcondition cannot be made when an ESO is subsequently made in respect of the sameoffender. Section 107IAC(4), which prohibits the making of an intensive monitoringcondition more than once, expressly refers to an order that is made under that section8 Parole Act, s 107IAB(1).9 Section 107IAC(2).10 Section 107IAC(3).11 Section 107IAC(5).12 Chief Executive of Department of Corrections v Wilson, above n 3; and Chief Executive ofDepartment of Corrections v Wilson, above n 3.at the time an ESO is imposed and does not purport to limit the Court from doing sowhere a previous intensive monitoring condition was made as part of an interimsupervision order.[39] As to whether the intensive monitoring condition must be adjusted for theperiod the offender has already been subject to intensive monitoring, the issue wasaddressed by this Court in Chief Executive, Department of Corrections v Paniora13and subsequently by the Court of Appeal.14 Mr Paniora had been subject to intensivemonitoring since his release from prison. Jagose J rejected Mr Paniora's submissionthat the time he had already been subject to intensive monitoring should be taken intoaccount in specifying the maximum duration of the intensive monitoring condition toaccompany the ESO. The Judge concluded:15[52] To summarise my decision on this aspect, only the Board imposesintensive monitoring conditions; the Court's role is to "make an orderrequiring the Board" to do so. If so ordered by the Court, the Board is toimpose an intensive monitoring condition. The maximum duration of thatcondition is to be specified by the Court. Whatever duration up to thatmaximum is imposed by the Board, the condition only applies during the first12 months of the ESO. Neither the Court in specifying the maximum duration,nor the Board in imposing the condition, is either required to take or prohibitedfrom taking into account time spent on intensive monitoring conditions inassociation with interim supervision orders.(footnotes omitted)[40] In upholding Jagose J's decision, the Court of Appeal observed that an earlierperiod of monitoring pursuant to interim conditions is a permissive, but not mandatory,consideration the Court may take into account when assessing the length of anintensive monitoring condition when imposing an ESO.16 It follows therefore that,while the court may take into account that the offender has previously been subject tointensive monitoring when imposing an ESO, the only constraint on the length of themonitoring condition is the statutory maximum of 12 months.[41] Mr Starling now accepts the Court can impose an intensive monitoringcondition that does not take into account the previous time the respondent has been13 Chief Executive, Department of Corrections v Paniora [2018] NZHC 1505.14 Paniora v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2018] NZCA 607.15 Chief Executive, Department of Corrections v Paniora, above n 13.16 At [29].subject to monitoring. However, he submitted it is arbitrary and unfair to impose afurther 12 months' intensive monitoring having regard to Mr Wilson having alreadybeen subject to five months of such monitoring and that a further 12 months wouldmean he will effectively be subject to this type of condition for a period almost50 per cent longer than the 12-month maximum that can be imposed when making anESO. He also noted that, if an adjustment is not made for intensive monitoringimposed at the time of the making of an interim supervision order, the total length oftime a respondent will be subject to intensive monitoring will depend on when a fixtureis allocated for the hearing of the ESO. He maintained Mr Wilson would be prejudicedby his own cooperation in submitting to such a condition for the purpose of the interimorder if no adjustment is made. Mr Starling further submitted that, by not taking intoaccount that a respondent has already been subject to intensive monitoring whenmaking an ESO, respondents may be pressured into immediately agreeing to ESOs inorder to limit the total period they will be subject to an intensive monitoring condition.[42] I accept these are considerations that a Court may take into account in assessingthe question of imposing an intensive monitoring condition and its length at the timeof making an ESO. However, such implications will be secondary to the merits ofsuch a condition and whether the imposition of the maximum duration of the order isjustified in the circumstances of the individual respondent. The Court will need toconsider their ability to manage the risk they present to others and the communityinterest in keeping them from re-offending. Notwithstanding the type ofconsiderations identified by Mr Starling, a respondent's compliance and progresswhile subject to an interim intensive monitoring condition is likely to inform thequestion of whether a shorter period would be appropriate when making an ESO.[43] In making the assessment as to the length of intensive monitoring, the Courtcan take into account Mr Wilson's compliance with the conditions of the ISO and hisprogress to date. A concern has been expressed regarding Mr Wilson's behaviour athis place of residence since late last year. There are reports he continues to engage indeviant and manipulative behaviour. Examples include him accessing an internet-capable device without permission which he used to access pornographic images andvideos, and resulted in him being charged with breaching the conditions of the ISO.17Ms Currie indicated he has recently been convicted and sentenced on that charge.Mr Wilson has also admitted collecting images of children from health and lifestylemagazines for the purpose of masturbation.[44] It is further reported that Mr Wilson is not applying the strategies fromtreatment to attempt to reduce his sexual preoccupation or using his safety plan. Heis described as having demonstrated a high level of dishonesty and misusing thesupport available to him. It is emphasised that it is important his days are structuredto help him manage his risk and avoid deviant thinking. It follows that he still requiresa high level of external supervision to manage his sexual behaviours andpreoccupation.[45] In view of Mr Wilson's inability to manage his risk of re-offending and thecommunity interest in preventing him from doing so, I consider the Board should beafforded the greatest discretion to ameliorate that risk and be given the ability toimpose the maximum length of intensive monitoring. Accordingly, there will be anorder that the intensive monitoring condition to accompany the ESO will be for thefull 12-month period, being the first 12 months of the ESO.Orders[46] Mr Wilson is ordered to be the subject of an ESO for a term of 10 years. Thatorder will come into effect on the date of this judgment. I make a further orderrequiring the Parole Board to impose an intensive monitoring condition, pursuant tos 107IAC of the Act, for a maximum duration of 12 months from the date of themaking of the ESO.Solicitors:Crown Solicitor, Christchurch17 Parole Act, s 107T.