New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Intensive monitoring

Legal area

Court

26 Aug 2022

CHISNALL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZCA 402 [26 August 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZCA 402
Court

Court of Appeal

Having considered the statutory framework, expert evidence and admissible updating material from the PPO review process, the Court concluded an IM ESO (with intensive monitoring) is a sufficient and less intrusive means to manage the appellant's risk; therefore the PPO was not necessary, must be cancelled, and the ESO application remitted to the High Court for determination with an interim supervision order imposed pending that hearing.
30 Jun 2022

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v NARAYAN [2022] NZHC 1535

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1535
Court

High Court

On provisional evidence (Dr Bartle's report and actuarial instruments) the respondent demonstrated a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and met the s107IAA criteria for a high risk of future sexual offending; the risk would be exacerbated during community reintegration and existing release conditions were insufficiently certain, therefore an Interim Supervision Order with intensive 24-hour monitoring, program attendance variation and other special conditions was necessary and proportionate to protect the public and promote rehabilitation pending determination of the ESO application.
24 May 2022

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

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1148
Court

High Court

On the evidence, including an expert health assessor report showing enduring sexual deviance, compulsivity, limited self-regulation, high actuarial risk scores and limited treatment progress, the statutory criteria in s107I and s107IAA were satisfied; a 10-year ESO (the statutory maximum) was the minimum period required for community safety; the Court may direct the Parole Board to impose an intensive monitoring condition for up to 12 months when making an ESO and prior intensive monitoring under an interim order does not preclude such a direction nor compel deduction of earlier time, althoug…
6 Dec 2021

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v WILSON [2021] NZHC 3325 [7 December 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3325
Court

High Court

On the provisional evidence (health assessor's report and actuarial instruments) the Court was satisfied that Wilson was an eligible offender and that, on a provisional basis, he displayed a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and met the s107IAA thresholds (intense sexual drive, proclivity for serious sexual offending, limited self‑regulation, lack of remorse/concern for victims), such that there is a high risk of future relevant sexual offending; accordingly an ISO with IM and the specified conditions was justified to protect the community pending the substantive ESO hearing.
30 Nov 2021

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v WILSON [2021] NZHC 3239 [30 November 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3239
Court

High Court

The statutory test for making an interim supervision order with intensive monitoring was satisfied and, because the respondent's accommodation could accommodate the IM conditions and he did not oppose, the court granted the interim supervision order with intensive monitoring on the special conditions set out in the appendix to the applicant's memorandum dated 9 November 2021.
4 Oct 2021

C v NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD [2021] NZHC 2567

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2567
Court

High Court

Court held: (1) Corrections breached s107K(3)(bb)(ii) by placing applicant at Spring Hill where the approved agency (AA) both operated the residence and provided his programme, meaning applicant effectively resided with his programme provider; (2) applicant was arbitrarily and unlawfully detained under s22 NZBORA after residential restrictions expired (18 May 2017) because Corrections and agencies required he not leave Spring Hill unless accompanied by mentors, producing a substantial and unjustified restraint on freedom of movement over a prolonged period; (3) the Parole Board condition of 1…
11 Jun 2021

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v CLEMENTS [2021] NZHC 1383

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1383
Court

High Court

The High Court was satisfied on the health assessors' reports and actuarial tools that the respondent has a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and meets the mandatory criteria in s107IAA such that there is a high risk of future relevant sexual offending; accordingly an ESO for the minimum required period of 10 years (commencing 26 December 2020) was necessary for community safety and an intensive monitoring condition for 12 months from the sentence release date was imposed.
27 May 2021

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v CLEMENTS [2021] NZHC 1206

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1206
Court

High Court

On the basis of the expert psychological and forensic reports the Court was satisfied that the statutory requirements of the Parole Act 2002 were met, and therefore ordered a 10-year Extended Supervision Order commencing 26 December 2020 with an intensive monitoring condition attached for 12 months.
27 Apr 2021

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v HARRIS [2021] NZHC 897

Citation

[2021] NZHC 897
Court

High Court

Because the Court was satisfied on the basis of the health assessor's report and the statutory factors in s 107IAA that Mr Harris poses a high risk of future relevant sexual offending, an extended supervision order for ten years commencing 17 May 2021 was warranted and the Court should direct the Parole Board to impose an intensive monitoring condition for up to 12 months.
1 Apr 2021

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v TULILOA [2021] NZHC 745

Citation

[2021] NZHC 745
Court

High Court

On the evidence the Court was provisionally satisfied the ESO criteria in s107I were met (pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and high future risk under s107IAA(1)); consequently an ISO was necessary to prevent uncontrolled release and intensive monitoring plus tailored standard and special conditions were proportionate and necessary to reduce risk and promote rehabilitation pending final ESO determination.