THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v KING [2018] NZHC 656

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v KING [2018] NZHC 656 [12 April 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECRI-2017-409-126[2018] NZHC 656BETWEEN THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTOF CORRECTIONSApplicantAND LAISON REIHANA KINGRespondentHearing: 11 April 2018Appearances: P A Currie for ApplicantM Starling for the RespondentJudgment: 12 April 2018JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J(REASONS FOR ORDERS)[1] This judgment records the orders that were made in open court on11 April 2018.Orders[2] Laison Reihana King is ordered subject to:(1) An Extended Supervision Order ("ESO") for a period of 10 yearspursuant to s 107F of the Parole Act 2002 ("the Act").(2) To Intensive Monitoring pursuant to s 107IAB of the Act.(3) Each of these Orders are to take effect from Mr King's statutory releasedate.(4) Interim special conditions are ordered pursuant to s 1071A of the Actin terms of those put before the Court, the Schedule to this judgment.Comment[3] These Orders were made with Mr King's consent, advised by Mr Starling whois known to the Court as an highly experienced counsel in this area of the law.[4] I was satisfied on the evidence before the Court and the submissions of theChief Executive's counsel Ms Currie, and Mr Starling, and informal advice given theCourt by Ms Head, the health assessor (registered clinical psychologist), that theOrders sought are warranted.[5] In particular, I am satisfied that under s 107I(5) of the Act the minimum periodrequired for the safety of the community is 10 years, given the level of risk posed byMr King, the seriousness of harm which might be caused to victims, and the likelyduration of the risk. I understand from Mr Starling that intensive monitoring is onlysought for those cases where the risk is of this magnitude and duration.[6] Ms Head explained that the decision as to the duration of an Order is not madeby her, but by a Panel.[7] An aspect of the application which struck me as significant was the intensityof Mr King's sexual drive, desire or urge, exhibited by conduct while in the highlystructured and focused prison treatment environment, where the risk of detection isvery high.[8] Mr King's victims are in a sense random, associated with his other offendingand his coming across people in their homes, so that his victims are not "targeted" byage, gender or otherwise, in the way that is more commonly understood. This makeshis treatment more complex.[9] Mr King clearly does accept responsibility for his offending. I think there isreal merit in the matters put to me by Mr Starling and Ms Head, that there is adistinction to be drawn between those in his or a similar position who regardthemselves as "bad", or "deficient or flawed" in some way, as an explanation for theiractions and leave it at that as opposed to those who regard themselves as inherently"good" persons who do "bad things", as Mr Starling put it.[10] Self-description as "bad" is not helpful to explain their actions, as it mayobviate their perceived need, and the opportunity for rehabilitation and productiveengagement with the resources available under Orders such as those now made.Disposition[11] I am satisfied that there is a high risk that Mr King would engage in otherserious sexual offending within 10 years of release so as to warrant the Orders made,but based on what I have read and heard, I advised Mr King that he is clearly someonewho has a real prospect of avoiding repeated imprisonment, if he engages fully withall that treatment and help which is available to him under the Orders made, and isotherwise compliant.[12] This judgment records the reasons and some background to the Orders made...Nicholas Davidson JSolicitors:Raymond Donnelly, ChristchurchM Starling, Barrister, ChristchurchSCHEDULE