THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v JAMIE RICHARD MEADOWS [2019] NZHC 3128

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v JAMIE RICHARD MEADOWS[2019] NZHC 3128 [28 November 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECRI-2018-409-000132[2019] NZHC 3128BETWEEN THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSApplicantAND JAMIE RICHARD MEADOWSRespondentHearing: 27 November 2019Appearances: P A Currie for ApplicantK Chalmers for RespondentJudgment: 28 November 2019JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM JIntroduction[1] The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections has applied, unders 107F of the Parole Act 2002 (the Act), for an extended supervision order (ESO) inrespect of the respondent, Mr Meadows. The application also includes an applicationfor intensive monitoring (IM) under s 107IAB. The ESO is sought for the maximumperiod of 10 years,1 while the IM is sought for the maximum period of 12 months.2[2] While the application is not opposed by the respondent in any respect, thisCourt must still be satisfied that the relevant criteria set out in s 107I(2) have beenmet, and must provide its reasons for making the order.3 Thus, while I made the order1 Section 107I(4).2 Section 107IAC(3).3 Section 107H(6).when the matter was called on 27 November 2019 in Mr Meadows' presence, thisdecision briefly sets out my reasons for doing so.The legal framework[3] The application is filed under s 107F which provides: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 expirydate, regardless of whether that sentence is for arelevant offence; and(ii) the date on which the offender ceases to be subject toany release conditions; or[4] An application can only be filed in relation to an "eligible offender" under theAct. Section 107C defines an eligible offender as an offender who is not subject to anindeterminate sentence, but who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a relevantoffence and that sentence has not been quashed or otherwise set aside.[5] The grounds which must be met before the Court can make an ESO are set outin s 107I. These are: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 infuture commit a relevant violent offence.[6] An ESO must state the term of the order which may not exceed 10 years.4Under s 107I(5) of the Act the term must be the minimum period required for the safetyof the community in light of:(a) the level of risk posed by the offender in committing a sexual offenceagainst children or young persons;(b) the seriousness of the harm that might be caused to the victims; and(c) the likely duration of the risk.[7] In making an ESO the Court must explain the reasons for the order being made,including the basis upon which the statutory test has been met.5The respondent[8] Mr Meadows is 29 years old. He has an intellectual disability and has, in thepast, been a compulsory care recipient under the Intellectual Disability CompulsoryCare and Rehabilitation Act 2003. He is currently subject to an interim supervisionorder which came into force on 8 March 2019,6 was shortly before his sentence expirydate of 29 March 2019, which was also the date on which his release conditions ended.[9] There is no dispute that Mr Meadows is an eligible offender. On24 October 2017, he was sentenced in the Christchurch District Court to a total oftwo years one month's imprisonment in respect of the following offences:74 Section 107I(4) of the Act.5 R v Peta [2007] NZCA 28, [2007] 2 NZLR 627.6 R v Meadows HC Christchurch CRI-2018-409-132, 8 March 2019 (minute of Nation J).7 R v Meadows [2017] NZDC 24015.(a) sexual connection with a young person (s 134 Crimes Act 1961);(b) breach of conditions of intensive supervision (x 4) (s 70A SentencingAct 2002); and(c) disturbing use of a telephone (s 112 Telecommunications Act 2001).[10] Mr Meadows is not subject to an indeterminate sentence and the sentencesimposed on him have not been quashed or otherwise set aside. He was made subjectto an interim supervision order before his release conditions expired and he hasremained subject to that interim supervision order, so he is an eligible offender.Have the grounds for making an extended supervision order been met, and if so,what terms should be imposed?[11] As outlined in the submissions of counsel for the applicant, the legal principlesapplying to the making of an ESO are helpfully summarised in the Court of Appeal'sdecision in Kiddell v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, and I havetaken those principles into account in reaching my decision.8[12] In addition, to assist me in determining whether an ESO should be made, areport was prepared by Dr Karla Mattson, a registered clinical psychologist in supportof the application. That report was dated 5 September 2018. Because of the length oftime since that report was undertaken an updated risk assessment has been undertaken.It is dated 7 November 2019 and it updates and replaces the original report. However,I note there is no material change in the risk-related traits exhibited by Mr Meadowsbetween the two reports.[13] In Mr Meadows' case, the ESO is sought on the grounds there is a high risk hewill, in future, commit a relevant sexual offence. In deciding that, the Court must besatisfied of the factors set out in s 107IAA(1):8 Kiddell v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2019] NZCA 171.107IAA 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—(a) displays an intense drive, desire, or urge to commit a relevant sexualoffence; 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 for pastoffending:(ii) an absence of understanding for or concern about the impactof his or her sexual offending on actual or potential victims.I now consider the evidence to support each of these criteria.Does the respondent display an intense drive, desire or urge to commit a relevantsexual offence?[14] In her initial report, Dr Mattson concluded that Mr Meadows displayed anintense drive to commit further relevant sexual offences. In her updated assessmentshe noted that while Mr Meadows denies any specific intention to sexually reoffend,he acknowledges he would likely use a cell-phone to access pornographic orobjectional material on the internet and/or to make contact with children via socialmedia. She concluded that he has yet to demonstrate any significant change that wouldmodify her initial finding as to his continued intense drive to commit sexual offences.Does he have a predilection or proclivity for serious sexual offending?[15] Mr Meadows has a history of sexual offending against female children sincechildhood. He engaged in sexually abusive behaviour within his family home andwelfare homes when he was a child and adolescent with behaviour ranging fromsexualised talk through to vaginal rape of children. He has displayed sexualisedbehaviour towards strangers in their home. For example, in 2013 he entered a seriesof flats, went into a nine year old girl's bedroom and touched her leg. He was laterfound with the girl's underwear in his possession.[16] His most recent offending included making contact with a 14 year old girl whosuffered from developmental delays, eventually meeting with her where he engagedin sexual behaviour. He has also contacted other young children asking for sexuallyexplicit photos and/or underwear. I therefore accept Dr Mattson's conclusion thatMr Meadows has demonstrated a longstanding, consistent proclivity towards sexualoffending and it is sufficiently serious given that it is primarily directed towardschildren.Does Mr Meadows have a limited self-regulatory capacity?[17] While Dr Mattson considered that Mr Meadows may have capacity forappropriate self-regulation, she noted he has chosen to repeatedly engage in anti-socialbehaviour and has not shown an ability to regulate himself independently.Mr Meadows has repeatedly accessed inappropriate material despite sanctions and hehas repeatedly breached conditions imposed on him during residential care and whilston intensive supervision. As she noted, he prioritises his desire for enjoyment insexual fulfilment over adhering to the rules or consideration of others' rights. I amsatisfied he has limited self-regulatory capacity.Does Mr Meadows display a lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse for pastoffending?[18] It is apparent from Mr Meadows' history that he has not demonstrated adequateresponsibility or remorse for his offending, although this may be in part due to hisintellectual impairment. His explanations tend to minimise the seriousness or dismissthe importance of his behaviour. In the updated assessment only a rudimentaryreflection of responsibility and remorse was proffered and it was not consideredadequate to mitigate any offending related sexual urges should they arise. In short,Dr Mattson concluded, and I agree, that Mr Meadows does not yet display adequateresponsibility or remorse for his sexual offending.Does Mr Meadows display understanding for or concern about the impact of hissexual offending on actual or potential victims?[19] At best Mr Meadows appears to have a superficial understanding of the extentof his behaviour and he seems to have less awareness of any impact that his behaviourmight have on victims. When he acknowledged the high likelihood that he wouldagain access internet based objectional material and potential victims via social media,his affect when discussing these topics appeared positive, which Dr Mattson observedwas "incongruent with any understanding of the gravity of sexual offending".Dr Mattson observed no real developments in Mr Meadows' insight into the impact ofsexual offending on victims between the first interview and the updated interview, andher conclusion remained that he does not yet have an adequate understanding of theimpact of sexual offending.Is there a high risk that Mr Meadows will in future commit a relevant sexual offence?[20] Dr Mattson has interviewed Mr Meadows and also used a range of assessmenttools to try and quantify his risk of further relevant offending. Her most recent reportcontinued to assess him as being at "high risk of . committing a further relevantoffence while in the community". She noted that if Mr Meadows does sexuallyreoffend, it would likely be related to him accessing female children via social media,before sexualising his contact with them and attempting to meet for the purpose ofsexual offending. Given his prior behaviour, it is also possible that he will enter privateresidences during the night and attempt sexualised contact with female residents(children or adults).[21] It is clear that Mr Meadows has not demonstrated that he is willing or able toactively manage his own risk and there is little short-term prospect of him being ableto meaningfully engage in treatment. Although he has been referred to both the STOPadolescent programme in 2004 and the STOP programme in 2011, he showed poormotivation for treatment and has not engaged constructively with the programmes. Hehas a high number of dynamic risk factors and limited internal capacity to manage thatrisk which is likely to continue in the longer term.[22] I therefore concur with Dr Mattson's conclusion that there is a high risk thatMr Meadows will engage in relevant offending within 10 years of release.Order and length of order[23] Based on the information provided to the Court, I am satisfied thatMr Meadows has or has had a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and thatthere is a high risk that he will in future commit a relevant sexual offence. He alsoposes a real and ongoing risk to the community.[24] Given Mr Meadows' history, his limited intellectual capacity, and his failure toengage in treatment programmes to date, I am satisfied it is appropriate to make anorder, as sought, for 10 years and to impose intensive monitoring for the maximumperiod of 12 months.[25] Accordingly, pursuant to s 107I of the Act, I make an ESO for a term of10 years. I also make an order pursuant to s 107IAC of the Act requiring theParole Board to impose an intensive monitoring condition on the offender for a periodof 12 months.[26] These orders are to come into force on 27 November 2019.Solicitors:Raymond Donnelly & Co., ChristchurchK H Cook, Barrister, Christchurch