CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v [2021] NZHC 118

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v [2021] NZHC 118 [10 February 2021]NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) ORIDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360350.htmlIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECRI-2020-454-000013[2021] NZHC 118UNDER the Parole Act 2002IN THE MATTER of an application for an extended supervision orderBETWEEN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSApplicantAND KARL SHERIDAN SALMONRespondentHearing: 2 February 2020Appearances: P A Currie for the Applicant T Aickin for the RespondentJudgment: 10 February 2021JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM JThis judgment was delivered by me on 10 February 2020 at 9.00 am,pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDateIntroduction[1] The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (the applicant) has applied for an extended supervision order (ESO) with respect to the respondent, Karl Sheridan Salmon, for a period of 10 years. 1[2] Mr Salmon initially opposed the making of the order, however he sought time to complete one-on-one counselling to ascertain whether this would impact on his risk and this counselling subsequently occurred.[3] Mr Salmon's current position is that he acknowledges:(a) he is an eligible offender; and(b) that he is likely to fulfil the criteria set out in s 107IAA of the Parole Act 2002 (the Act), particularly when consideration is given to the Court of Appeal's dicta in Kiddell v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections.2However, he disputes that a 10 year ESO is appropriate, arguing instead for a shorter ESO, saying he is developing the skills to manage his risk and therefore an ESO of 10 years' duration is not needed to provide for the safety of the community.An application for an ESO[4] An application can only be made in relation to an "eligible offender". 3Mr Salmon is an eligible offender because he is:(a) currently subject to a sentence of imprisonment;(b) the sentence is for a relevant sexual offence;(c) the sentence has not been quashed or otherwise set aside; and1 Pursuant to Parole Act 2002, s 107F.2 Kiddell v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2019] NZCA 171.3 As defined in the Parole Act, s 107C.(d) he is not subject to an indeterminate sentence.[5] The purpose of an ESO and the grounds for the Court to make an ESO are set out in s 107I of the Act as follows:107I Sentencing court may make extended supervision order(1) The purpose of an extended supervision order is to protect members of the community from those who, following receipt of a determinate sentence, pose a real and ongoing risk of committing serious sexual or violent offences.(2) A sentencing court may make an extended supervision order if, following the hearing of an application made under section 107F, the court is satisfied, having considered the matters addressed in the health assessor's report as set out in section 107F(2A), that—(a) the offender has, or has had, a pervasive pattern of serious sexual or violent offending; and(b) either or both of the following apply:(i) there is a high risk that the offender will in future commit a relevant sexual offence:(ii) there is a very high risk that the offender will in future commit a relevant violent offence.[6] In assessing whether or not there is a high risk of committing a relevant sexual offence, the Court is guided by the factors set out in s 107IAA(1) of the Act. This provides:(1) A court may determine that there is a high risk that an eligible offender will commit a relevant sexual offence only if it is satisfied that the offender—(a) displays an intense drive, desire, or urge to commit a relevant sexual 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 for past offending:(ii) an absence of understanding for or concern about the impact of his or her sexual offending on actual or potential victims.[7] Every 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 safety of the community in light of:(a) The level of risk posed by the offender in committing a sexual offence against 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.[8] In making an ESO the Court must explain the reasons why such an order is being made, including the basis upon which the statutory test has been met.5 Even where the respondent consents to the order being made, the Court must articulate why the statutory criteria are met.6Mr Salmon's offending[9] Mr Salmon is 26 years old. He has 37 convictions, the earliest of which were predominantly property offences involving theft, burglary and unlawfully taking motor vehicles. The relevant offending, however, relates to sexual offending against young women.[10] On 19 December 2011, when he was aged 17, he was sentenced to six months' community detention and 12 months' supervision on several charges, including a representative charge of sexual connection with a 14 year old girl.[11] On 19 July 2012 he was sentenced to 12 month's imprisonment on two further charges of sexual offending with a young person, when he commenced a relationship via Facebook with a 15 year old female, which in turn led to a sexual relationship in breach of the conditions of his sentence of community detention and intensive supervision.4 Section 107I(4).5 R v Peta [2007] NZCA 28, [2007] 2 NZLR 627.6 Turnbull v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2020] NZCA 409 at [11].[12] On 12 November 2015 Mr Salmon was sentenced in the Christchurch High Court to six years' imprisonment on five charges of sexual connection with a young person, a charge of blackmail, a charge of doing an indecent act on a young person, four charges of threatening to kill (three representative), two charges of possessing an objectionable publication and one of making an objectionable publication.7 The charges involved five victims, two of whom were 14 years old at the time of the offending, and two of whom were 15 years old at the time of the offending, and all of whom were initially contacted by Mr Salmon through Facebook. When the victims resisted him or threatened to tell others what was going on, he responded with threats, including the threats to kill.[13] Mr Salmon is still serving his sentence of imprisonment, with the sentence expiry date being 25 February 2021. During his sentence he commenced treatment for his sexual offending at the Kia Marama special treatment unit. However, he left the programme part way through and Mr Els, the clinical psychologist who prepared a report for this application, says this was because of "a variable, but ultimately unsatisfactory attempt to address his sexual offending". Mr Salmon has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and Mr Els said that when Mr Salmon was prompted to engage in the programme "he would often refuse and provide a number of reasons for his limited participation. These included, that he had nothing to contribute, lacked understanding of what was required, referred to his autism diagnosis, and heightened levels of anxiety".[14] Mr Els reports that Mr Salmon appears confident that he would be able to manage his risk of reoffending once released from prison. However, he was not prepared to consider completing the recommended intensive treatment programme at Kia Marama. As a result, there are concerns about his ability to manage his risk of sexual offending upon release from prison and into the future, and this application for an ESO has been made.7 R v Salmon [2015] NZHC 2808.Are the requirements for making an ESO met?[15] Section 107I(2), set out at [5] above, provides the relevant criteria which must be met before an ESO may be made.[16] To assist me in assessing whether those criteria are met, I was provided with Mr Els' report which was prepared on 30 April 2020. Given the time that had elapsed since that report was written, Mr Els gave oral evidence in which he confirmed the information and the conclusions in his report were still valid. He also confirmed that he had considered other information which had become available since writing his report and these did not alter his conclusions. These included the brief psychological treatment report prepared by Lucy Kioa, another clinical psychologist working for the Department of Corrections, which reported on the outcome of the eight one-on-one sessions Mr Salmon had with a psychologist between 14 August 2020 and 4 November 2020, and the safety plan Mr Salmon had prepared prior to his last appearance before the Parole Board. 8[17] Section 107I(2)(a) requires the offender to have, or have had, a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending. Mr Els' report traverses Mr Salmon's history of sexual offending and notes that a number of the other offences, including threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm and blackmail also form part of the dynamics of Mr Salmon's sexual offending. After discussing Mr Salmon's offending history, Mr Els notes that Mr Salmon "shows a rapid return to reoffending that was not being deterred by judicial sanctions". He goes on to say:A general background pattern for Mr Salmon's offending appears to be that he engaged with multiple under-aged pubescent females via social media. The chronology of his sexual offending, including periods of grooming, shows that there was frequent overlap with regards to his involvement with different victims. He often made use of different profiles to enable multiple options for engaging with potential victims.[18] He notes that Mr Salmon appeared to struggle to maintain meaningful relationships with same-aged female peers and so he engages with females younger than himself through social media platforms and this likely bolsters his confidence and8 While this document was dated 7 June 2019, it seemed Mr Els had not seen it until provided by counsel for Mr Salmon with her submissions.may make him feel more in control. However his "emerging anti-sociality led to him engaging in the pursuit of interactions with the victims where he met his sexual needs in a sexually deviant, impersonal, and unilateral manner that did not have a regard for their age and their inability to consent, or a combination of this". Mr Salmon then engaged in manipulation, coercion, threats and physical force in order to meet his sexual needs and to regain a sense of control in the face of perceived rejection or resistance from his victims.[19] I am satisfied that the history of his offending demonstrates a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending where he was able to offend against multiple victims in a relatively short space of time and in a notably similar way, and where he was not deterred either by court-imposed penalties or court-imposed supervision.[20] The next issue to consider, under s 1071(2), is whether there is a high risk that Mr Salmon will in future commit a relevant sexual offence. In considering that issue I must be satisfied that all the factors set out in s 107IAA(1) are present, and I consider each under the sub-headings below.Does Mr Salmon display an intense drive, desire, or urge to commit a relevant sexual offence?[21] I am satisfied that Mr Salmon's history demonstrates an intense drive to sexually offend against underage victims. As already outlined, Mr Salmon engaged in relevant sexual offending against six different victims with no real delay between being sanctioned for one tranche of offending before embarking on very similar offending. As Mr Els says, Mr Salmon's sexual offending has shown an increase in frequency, intrusiveness and persistence over the period in which he has offended.[22] I note that the use of the words "displays" in s 107IAA(1)(a) does not mean that those traits must be externally manifested at the time of the application. As was said by Davidson J in Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Douglas:9It is not necessary that the person concerned is presently displaying the characteristics for assessment, but it is sufficient that they may be latent and emerge only in certain contexts.9 Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Douglas [2016] NZHC 3184 at [86].[23] Here, Mr Salmon clearly displayed an intense drive, desire, or urge to commit a relevant sexual offence up until the time of imprisonment. There has been, as I will go on to discuss, a lack of engagement with the intensive programme for addressing sexual offending which was made available to Mr Salmon during his incarceration, and he has not addressed the reasons for his repeated sexual offending. Accordingly, I am satisfied that, without adequate supervision, Mr Salmon would revert to displaying the same intense drive, desire, or urge to commit sexual offending against young women.Does Mr Salmon have a predilection or proclivity for serious sexual offending?[24] Given Mr Salmon's offending history, Mr Els concludes, and I agree, that Mr Salmon has shown "a stable predilection and proclivity towards the commission of serious sexual offending". As Mr Els says, the seriousness and intrusiveness of that offending has increased over time, even after detection. These include, with one victim, threatening violence unless she met with him and engaged in sexual acts and sent him intimate photographs of herself. When he subsequently forced her to have vaginal and anal sex with him, he took video and still photographs of different sexual acts. He then used possession of these images to threaten her with posting the video online or sending it to her parents if she did not comply with his wishes.[25] When another victim rebuffed him, because he was 20 and she was 14, he repeatedly threatened to kill her and her boyfriend, saying he had done so before and that he possessed many weapons. Similarly, when another victim tried to block him when his messages became unpleasant and sexual, he threatened that he would kidnap and rape her, and that he was watching her house, and would grab her at night and kill her.[26] There can be no doubt that his behaviour shows a predilection or proclivity for serious sexual offending.Does Mr Salmon have limited self-regulatory capacity?[27] Mr Salmon has a history of engaging in disruptive and violent behaviour, both at home and school, which dates back to childhood. Mr Els says this lack ofself-regulation continued into his youth and adulthood and is demonstrated by his inability to maintain employment, his engagement in non-sexual criminal behaviour, and his generally unstructured lifestyle. It is clear that despite attempts to intervene and provide support to Mr Salmon to assist him in managing his risk of sexual offending through conditions of sentence, he returned to sexual offending. There is no evidence that he has been able to self-regulate to avoid sexual offending.[28] Again, in the absence of any evidence that Mr Salmon has acquired the ability to regulate himself upon release from prison, Mr Els is satisfied he meets the threshold for this criterion, and I agree.Does Mr Salmon display either a lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse for past offending, or an absence of understanding for or concern about the impact of his sexual offending on actual or potential victims?[29] While Mr Salmon has pleaded guilty to his sexual offending, there is no sense of him taking real responsibility or demonstrating remorse for that offending. When Mr Salmon was sentenced for the second tranche of offending in July 2012, Judge Zohrab noted that Mr Salmon expressed no remorse for his offending.10 A similar theme was reflected when he was sentenced in 2015 for the third tranche of offending. Mander J recorded the following: 11[56] The psychiatric assessment refers to your lack of insight into your offending and its impact on your victims. You are assessed as having a combination of risk factors which correlate to an increased and significant risk of further sexual offending should you have contact with young and therefore vulnerable potential victims. This would seem almost inevitable given access to the internet. The risk is clearly amplified in the absence of assessment and treatment.[30] In April 2020 when Mr Els was completing his report, there was still a lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse for past offending. Mr Els noted significant inconsistencies between the official record of Mr Salmon's offending and his account of it, saying "he acknowledges certain sexual offences and denies others", even where he did acknowledge the sexual activity took place. Mr Els notes that:10 R v Salmon DC Nelson CRI-2012-042-00988, 19 July 2012 at [26].11 R v Salmon, above n 10, at [56]. a number of cognitive distortions and offence-permissive beliefs were apparent. For example, he infers mutuality between himself and certain victims, articulates non-sexual goals as explanations for his sexual offending, and lacks insight into the distress and pain shown by his victims.[31] In Mr Els' opinion, any remorse expressed by Mr Salmon is not "a reliably strong reaction or consistent stance that will assist him in avoiding future offending".[32] Similarly, in considering whether there was an absence of understanding for, or concern about, the impact of his sexual offending on actual or potential victims, Mr Els saw this as lacking. While Mr Salmon was able to verbally acknowledge that there would have been some negative impact of the offending on his victims, this acknowledgement did not appear to be unqualified and Mr Els considered it was based on a generalised perspective that sexual offending is harmful rather than it being personalised to Mr Salmon's victims.[33] He points to Mr Salmon still considering there was a level mutuality in the sexual offending, noting he continued sexual activity with some of his victims despite them expressing pain, and went on to record intimate images of them. These actions were inconsistent with him holding concern for their wellbeing. Even now, he is still not able to clearly articulate an appropriate level of concern regarding the impact of his offending.[34] Mr Els conclusion is that Mr Salmon's concern in relation to the impact of his sexual offending is likely self-focused in nature. He does not consider it to be stable and says it appears to be dependent on contextual factors such as his access to potential victims and accompanying level of sexual arousal.[35] Importantly, the same themes were reflected in the report following one-on-one counselling with Ms Kioa. She points out that Mr Salmon engaged in treatment in a "somewhat defended manner that appeared to reflect a degree of rigidity in his cognitive process". She notes that Mr Salmon had an ability to control and direct conversation in order to avoid distressing topics and that he "limited the degree of responsibility he felt for his past behaviour". Like Mr Els, she says that his account of his offending remains "discrepant from official information in that he denied the degree of physical aggression that is noted in the official information". She notes thatMr Salmon "maintained a tendency to present information that he feels justifies and provides evidence for his perspectives". Furthermore, his position tended to change depending on what he thought would serve his point in any discussion and it suggests to her a degree of ongoing dishonesty. Significantly, he engaged in a pattern of behaviour in his interactions which she described as "offence paralleling". If he viewed that others were vulnerable, he tended to use the opportunity to enjoy an experience of power by engaging in dominating, aggressive and manipulative behaviour.[36] When I consider the totality of this information, I am satisfied that Mr Salmon has neither an acceptance of responsibility or remorse for past offending, nor does he have an understanding for or concern about the impact of his sexual offending on actual or potential victims which goes beyond one that is superficial and self-orientated. As was said in Douglas, (albeit in the context of a similarly worded provision relating to public protection orders): 12 an "absence of understanding or concern " means that any understanding or concern is so distorted, superficial and self orientated, that it marries with the clear purpose of the legislation, that the checks and balances inherent in the combined and individual characteristics in s 13(2), are not operative to negate the risks which derive from those characteristics.[37] That is precisely the case here, Mr Salmon does not have an understanding for or concern about his victims at a level that would provide any real protection against further relevant sexual offending. Given Mr Salmon's ability to manipulate people and his dishonesty, I consider any future expression of remorse for past offending, or of understanding for or concern about his offending on actual or potential victims, would need to be tested very carefully to be confident it was genuine.[38] Having satisfied myself that Mr Salmon meets the criteria in s 107IAA(1), I turn back to the grounds for making an order set out in s 107I(2). Having considered Mr Salmon's offending history, I am satisfied he has a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending.13 He preys on young and vulnerable women, using social media12 Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Douglas, above n 9, at [89].13 As required by s 1071(2)(a).platforms to establish relationships with them for the purpose of sexually offending against them and, if they are not co-operative, he threatens them with violence.[39] I now turn to whether there is a high risk that he will in future commit a relevant sexual offence, as required by s 107I(2)(b). Clearly, Mr Salmon's past history of reoffending, even when under court ordered supervision, demonstrates there is a high risk of reoffending. That is supported by the assessment carried out by Mr Els as to Mr Salmon's potential to reoffend. This assessment included the use of actuarial risk measures which assess static and dynamic risk factors for sexual recidivism. Using the RoC*RoI, an actuarial risk measure developed for the Department of Corrections to assist in predicting an offender's risk of imprisonment following reconviction, Mr Salmon had a RoC*RoI score that indicated a moderate risk of imprisonment within five years of being released. However, Mr Els noted that the RoC*RoI performs best as a predictor of general offending and is not a good predictor of sexual reoffending risk.[40] Using the Automated Sexual Recidivism Scale – Revised (ASRS-R) Mr Salmon's score places him in a group that has been classified as at high risk of further sexual offending based on the comparative level of reoffending for those in the validation sample for this measure. Sexual offenders with the same score in the New Zealand validation sample as Mr Salmon had a five year recidivism rate of 22.23 per cent (margin of error 19.29% to 25.49%) and a 10 year recidivism rate of 27.52 per cent (margin of error 24.52% to 30.73%). Mr Els explains for various reasons the ASRS-R measure in Mr Salmon's case may underestimate his static risk because it does not take into account offences such as blackmail and use of threats of violence which are not specifically defined as sexual offences.[41] Given Mr Els considers those offences were related to his sexual offending, he considered Mr Salmon's ASRS-R score may underestimate his static risk. For that reason, he also used the Static-99R measure which can be hand-scored to take into account the sexual motivated offences. Mr Salmon's Static-99R score placed him at Level IVb, which is the Well Above Average Risk category. The predicted five year sexual recidivism rate for sexual offenders with the same score as Mr Salmon is 43.8 per cent (95% confidence interval of 37.8% to 50.1%).[42] Finally, on the Violence Risk Scale – Sexual Offence version (VRS-SO), Mr Salmon was again assessed over all as being in Level IVb (Well Above Average) risk category. He noted this probability of sexual reoffending was based on both static and dynamic risk predictors and there was a low likelihood of change based on Mr Salmon not completing an intensive treatment programme.[43] Using the VRS-SO dynamic score and the Static-99R static score, the estimated recidivism rate after five years was 49.3 per cent (95% confidence interval of 37.81% to 60.71%) and after 10 years was 62.6 per cent (with a 95% confidence interval of 52.47% to 71.69%), which was multiple times greater than the base rate for all sexual offenders in the prison-based sample.[44] Ms Aickin urged me to look at the fact that Mr Salmon had found participation in Kia Marama programme difficult and that was exacerbated by his ASD, but he had participated in the one-on-one counselling, which she considered showed he was making some progress towards addressing his offending related needs. She also directed my attention to the hand-written safety plan which Mr Salmon himself prepared in June 2019 following his disengagement with the Kia Marama treatment programme, saying it demonstrated a growing insight into the causes of his offending.[45] While I acknowledge those efforts, I consider this evidence falls a long way short from satisfying me that Mr Salmon no longer poses a real and ongoing risk of sexual offending to the community. While in Mr Salmon's safety plan he acknowledges what drove his behaviour, and that he had a lack of empathy towards his victims, I could see no constructive plan for how he would address that risk in the future, save for relying on the support of his mother and the need to work with a counsellor on an ongoing basis. Much the same conclusion was reached by Ms Kioa where she observed that Mr Salmon found it "difficult to generate treatment goals and did not view himself likely to require or benefit from treatment in order to manage his potential to reoffend". She concluded that his motivation to engage meaningfully in treatment remained in question.[46] In all the circumstances and taking into account Mr Salmon's actuarial risk of reoffending and his superficial engagement in treatment to address his offending risk,I am satisfied that there is a high risk that he will, in future, commit a relevant sexual offence.[47] While the making of an ESO is discretionary, even where the statutory criteria have been met, I am satisfied that, for the protection of the community from the risk of Mr Salmon committing serious sexual offences, it is appropriate to make an ESO.Duration of the ESOSubmissions[48] Ms Aickin submitted given the signs of progress by Mr Salmon, it was not necessary to make an ESO of 10 years' duration. She also pointed out that Mr Salmon's offending history, as a whole, does not place him at the most serious end of the scale for sexual offending and his safety plan prepared for his parole appearance, along with his willingness to engage in further one-on-one counselling, shows he has some insight into his offending triggers and what are high risk situations. In light of these factors, a shorter period of an ESO could be imposed before he is transitioned back to the community without that level of supervision.[49] Ms Currie, however, pointed out the very high risk of recidivism assessed by Mr Els using various actuarial measures over both a five and 10 year term. In addition, she pointed out that, under s 107M of the Act, either Mr Salmon, or the Chief Executive, may apply to this Court to cancel the order on the grounds that the offender no longer poses a high risk of committing a relevant sexual offence within the remaining term of the order. If, indeed, he engages constructively and can demonstrate the offending risk has abated, he can seek cancellation of the ESO at an earlier date.Discussion[50] It does concern me that Mr Salmon, who is a relatively young man at 26 years of age, should be subject to an extended supervision order for 10 years, as this may be counterproductive to Mr Salmon learning to manage his risk of reoffending on his own. Nevertheless, given the high assessed risk of Mr Salmon reoffending, and hisseemingly unfounded confidence that he can manage the risk himself without having completed an intensive treatment programme, I must place the protection of the community first.[51] Accordingly, I make an ESO with a duration of 10 years. The order will come into force on Mr Salmon's statutory release of 25 February 2021.[52] Given the short time between the making of this order and Mr Salmon's release date, the applicant has sought that this Court impose special conditions on an interim basis under s 107IA of the Act because there may not be sufficient time before the ESO comes into force for the Parole Board to determine what (if any) special conditions should be imposed on Mr Salmon.[53] The applicant seeks the following interim special conditions are imposed under s 107IA of the Act. These are:Interim Special Conditions1. To reside at Te Korowai, Freyberg Road Extension, Trentham, Upper Hutt, or any other address approved in writing by a Probation Officer, and not move from that address unless you have the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.2. Whilst at Te Korowai, to comply with the house rules issued by the provider of your approved accommodation.3. To be at your approved address between the hours of 8pm and 8am daily unless you have the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.4. To comply with the requirements of electronic monitoring and provide unimpeded access to your approved residence by a Probation Officer and/or representatives of the monitoring company for the purpose of maintaining the electronic monitoring equipment as directed by a Probation Officer.5. To submit to electronic monitoring as directed by a Probation Officer in order to monitor your compliance with any conditions relating to your whereabouts.6. Not to enter The South Island of New Zealand as defined by a Probation Officer in writing unless you have the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.7. Not to possess, use, or consume alcohol, controlled drugs or psychoactive substances except controlled drugs prescribed for you by a health professional.8. Upon request, to make available to a Probation Officer, or his or her agent, any electronic device capable of accessing the internet that is used by you, or is in your possession or control, for the purpose of monitoring your use of the device.9. Not to use or possess any device capable of accessing the internet unless you are under the direct supervision of an adult approved in writing by a Probation Officer, or unless you have the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.10. To disclose to a Probation Officer, at the earliest opportunity, details of any intimate relationship which commences, resumes, or terminates.[54] I am satisfied that it is appropriate to impose these conditions on an interim basis and an order to that effect is made under s 1071A of the Act.Solicitors:Raymond Donnelly & Co, ChristchurchCopy To:T Aickin, Barrister, Christchurch