skip to content Goto Site Search List of available accesskeys Goto Homepage - New Zealand Parole Board

BOULTER - Nathan - 14/09/2016

Parole Hearing
Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002

Nathan BOULTER

Hearing: 14 September 2016 at [Withheld]

Members of the Board:

  • Ms K Snook – Panel Convenor
  • Ms L Nathan
  • Mr B McMurray
  • Mr A Hackney

Support people:

  • [Withheld]
  • [Withheld]
  • [Withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Nathan Boulter, 27, appeared for a further consideration of parole on a sentence of eight years six months’ imprisonment for very serious violent and sexual offending against [Withheld].

2. Mr Boulter has a low prison security classification, a RoC*RoI of 0.6037, and sentence expiry date of 25 July 2019.

3. Mr Boulter’s mental health is now stable [Withheld].

4. We have a report from Mr Boulter’s treating psychiatrist dated 15 August 2016 which details the medication Mr Boulter is on and Mr Boulder’s good response to that.  Mr Boulter is said to have a good knowledge of his early warning signs.

5. Crucially, Mr Boulter has also been able to complete an adapted ASOTP one-to-one with the psychologist.  He participated in this twice a week for 11 months. Another inmate was also involved in the same treatment.

6. The Board has seen the treatment report from Mr Boulter’s completion of that course [Withheld].  It is a good report about Mr Boulter’s treatment goals and progress.  He is said to have developed insight into his offending and gained some skills to help mitigate his risk factors for re offending.  Mr Boulter’s intent to develop a pro-social life for himself is considered genuine and is said to have realistic goals.

7. The treatment report says that no further psychological treatment is indicated at this time.

8. Mr Boulter’s release plan is to live with [Withheld] in [Withheld].  The proposal is that he would be released on both GPS monitoring and residential restrictions, although at this time we do not have the required residential restrictions appendix which would be needed for such a release.  Mr Boulter’s [Withheld] were at the hearing today.  They spoke about the strong support they will offer Mr Boulter on release.

9. We talked to Mr Boulter today about what he learnt on the programme.  Unfortunately Mr Boulter was not able to recall any key elements of a safety plan in front of the Board today.  He did say he had gained benefit from the programme and knows that he has issues in trusting others and coping with the stress of relationships and relationship breakdowns.  Mr Boulter told the Board that a lot of his issues arise from a feeling of low self worth and a fear that people are going to leave him.  He told the Board he pushes people away.

10. The psychological treatment report we have indicates that Mr Boulter used sex as a way to cope with negative emotions.

11. Mr Boulter said that he did not think he had developed a safety plan on the course.  This would be surprising. It is clear that it would be of benefit for Mr Boulter to either develop a safety plan or be better able to articulate the elements of the safety plan he does have when he appears in front of the Board again.

12. Mr Boulter received a good report from the officer who attended the hearing today.  He is employed in the workshop and the officer noted that Mr Boulter’s interactions and requests for support have improved since he completed the treatment.

13. [Withheld]  from [Withheld] was also at the hearing.  She told the Board that on any release Mr Boulder will be provided with follow-up care for his mental health in the community.

14. It is clear that Mr Boulter’s [Withheld] are experienced now in terms of understanding [Withheld].  [Withheld] has also been diagnosed with that conditions and has lived successfully in the community for the past 10 years or so stable on medication.

15. We do remain concerned, however, about the way in which Mr Boulter’s mental health is not the only risk factor in his case.  The sentencing Judge noted that there was a link between Mr Boulter’s mental health and his offending but that, at least at that time, it was seen as a tenuous link.

16. Mr Boulter said today that he did not think things would have been as bad in terms of the offending if he had not been mentally unwell.  However it is clear that the work that Mr Boulter has done with the psychologist in terms of his use of sex as a coping strategy and general emotional dysregulation is also crucial.

17. Parole today is declined.  We have determined today that risk remains undue given the serious offending and the fact that Mr Boulter has only recently concluded treatment.

18. We acknowledge Mr Boulter’s positive progress and the support available to him, however, we are of the view that the skills he has learnt need to be tested via reintegration activities over time and different circumstances before Mr Boulter will meet the statutory test for a release on parole. Mr Boulter also needs to develop a safety plan, if he does not have one already, and internalise its key features.

19. This will all take time.  We will schedule Mr Boulter to be seen again by a Board in March 2018 and no later than the end of that month.

20. For that next Board, in accordance with section 21A(b) of the Parole Act 2002, we specify the relevant activities the Board will expect to be completed by that date as being reintegration once Mr Boulter meets the normal prison criteria for those.  We hope that this can include home leaves, escorted outings and possibly Release to Work.

21. In our view Mr Boulter’s reintegration and release planning would be assisted by him transferring to [Withheld].

22. For the next hearing we ask for the residential restrictions appendix which did not seem to be attached to the material before the Board today.

23. We also ask for an updated psychological risk assessment, taking into account the treatment Mr Boulter has received as well as any reintegration he has been able to undertake before that next hearing.  We also ask for an updated forensic report at that time.

Ms K Snook
Panel Convenor