Rapists take the Parole Board law chief to court
- April
- 16
5:24 am Live Window
Michael John Carroll and Allan Brian Miller, convicted on five and three rapes respectively and both in jail on preventive detention, allege the board is neither independent nor impartial and its decisions are illegal, largely because of its ties with the Corrections Department.
They want a raft of remedies, ranging from sacking the Parole Board to their own immediate freedom.
The board and attorney- general oppose their claims. The case is set down for a 10-day hearing in the High Court at Wellington in June.
The pairs Wellington lawyer, Tony Ellis, estimates his fee for the hearing will be $23,400, covered by legal aid. The Legal Services Agency will not reveal the full cost until the case is finished.
Carroll, who has spent about 20 years behind bars for the rapes, most committed while on parole, was freed in February 2003 but recalled to jail six months later.
In June that year, his parole address in Pukerua Bay, near Wellington, was leaked to media. Subsequent publicity sparked a huge outcry, forcing him to flee to a motel in Wellington and, later, to a Christchurch live-in rehabilitation programme. However, he breached parole conditions in August by absconding and drinking, so was sent back to jail. His latest bid for parole two months ago was declined.
In court documents, Ellis has criticised Carrolls probation officer, who had told the board Carroll had not managed his finances while on parole and had spent most of his $50,000 compensation from his incarceration at Lake Alice psychiatric unit at a massage parlour.
He believed the board was improperly influenced by adverse publicity surrounding Carrolls release and spend-up.
Contrary to the moral judgement of the probation officer, the finances of [Carroll] were being managed. What [Carroll] spent his money on was either not a relevant consideration for the acting chairperson, or if it was, it was a favourable matter, as it meant [Carroll] was less likely to be at risk to the public having spent significant monies in a massage parlour he was less likely to be committing further rapes, Ellis said in court documents.
Miller, who was jailed in 1991, claimed he had spent longer in jail than he should have because he was refused rehabilitation for sex offending and aggression against women until 2007, which prevented him passing parole criteria.
The amended statement of claim, with 39 causes of action, was filed last month and included:
* A call for a judicial review of the Parole Board and its predecessor because it was neither independent nor impartial.
* Allegations board chairman Judge David Carruthers was not impartial because he was paid from Corrections coffers.
* The 1688 Bill of Rights was breached by paying board chairmen with Corrections money.
* Claims board training and its 157-page guide for board members were unlawful and lacked independence because of links to Corrections.
* Calling for the board to ditch its method of calculating prisoners risk if paroled.
* Delayed psychological treatment prevented prisoners gaining parole.
Related posts
