DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v MAINDONALD [2018] NZHC 944

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v MAINDONALD [2018] NZHC 944

The judge declined to make an extended supervision order because the evidence did not satisfy the statutory threshold of a high risk of committing a serious relevant sexual offence as defined in the Parole Act; the assessed future risk was primarily of indecent acts rather than a qualifying serious relevant sexual...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 944
Parties
Applicant: The Chief Executive, Department of Corrections; Defendant: Regan James Maindonald
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
4 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extended Supervision Order Under the Parole Act / Hearing and Oral Judgment
Outcome
Application for extended supervision order and intensive monitoring declined; defendant released from sentence.
Legal Topics
Extended Supervision Order, Three Strikes Regime, Risk Assessment, Intensive Monitoring, Sexual Offending
Criminal Law Parole and Post‑custodial Supervision Sentencing Extended Supervision Order Three Strikes Regime Risk Assessment Intensive Monitoring Sexual Offending

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Chief Executive, Department of Corrections

Applicant

Regan James Maindonald

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Extended Supervision Order Under the Parole Act / Hearing and Oral Judgment

  1. 1 Whether an extended supervision order (ESO) should be made
  2. 2 Whether there is a high risk of serious relevant sexual offending as required by the Parole Act
  3. 3 Whether intensive monitoring for 12 months is warranted

Ratio Decidendi

The judge declined to make an extended supervision order because the evidence did not satisfy the statutory threshold of a high risk of committing a serious relevant sexual offence as defined in the Parole Act; the assessed future risk was primarily of indecent acts rather than a qualifying serious relevant sexual offence, so ESO and intensive monitoring were not justified.

Court Disposition

Application for extended supervision order and intensive monitoring declined; defendant released from sentence.

Orders

  • The Department of Corrections' application for an extended supervision order with intensive monitoring is declined.
  • Defendant is released from sentence which ended on 29 January 2018.