BUCKERIDGE - Ziggy Stardust - 01/02/2016
Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002
Ziggy Stardust BUCKERIDGE
Hearing: 1 February 2016 via AVL from NZPB Head Office, Wellington to [Withheld]
Members of the Board:
Hon. JW Gendall QC – Panel Convenor
Assoc. Prof. P Brinded
Mr D Hauraki
Ms F Pimm
In attendance: [Withheld]
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1. Ziggy Buckeridge was sentenced on 27 October 1992 for the murder of a 14 year old girl when he was aged 30 and with whom he had a sexual relationship. His parole eligibility date was 30 April 2002.
2. He has a history of drug abuse and prior convictions of rape and sodomy. He was released on parole in December 2004 only to be recalled because of cannabis use. He was released again in 2011 but recalled later that year.
3. When last seen by the Board on 13 May 2013 it made a postponement order for three years and Mr Buckeridge is being seen by the Board for the first time since then. He has a RoC*RoI of 0.6289 and is assessed by the psychologist at medium/high risk of further violent and sexual offending.
4. He participated in the [Withheld] Treatment Unit Programme in 2003 and the Drug Treatment Unit Programme in 2009. He has had extensive one-to-one counselling between 2010 and 2011.
5. He was transferred to the Special Treatment Unit at [Withheld] but has been assessed as not suitable for the programme there because, essentially, his dynamic risks have been treated and his static risks remain the same.
6. He says he has a new partner who has an 11 year old daughter and he wished her to visit him, which might reflect imperfect insight. His aim is to eventually be released to [Withheld], although we note that he has had a poor response to this in the past.
7. He does not seek release on parole and clearly he is not ready for release. He needs careful lengthy reintegration measures. The psychologist recommends: “After at least a year of stable compliance, proactive honesty and engagement with RTW or similar, a review process with his case manager, custodial staff and psychological advice might consider his readiness and/or any future goals considered necessary for him to apply for a residential reintegration programme assessment. When considered ready, release to a lengthy residential programme such as [Withheld] would be confirmed as an appropriate longer term goal.”
8. Mr Buckeridge is some time away from being eligible for release on parole as he remains an undue risk to the safety of the community. However, we agree that a possible pathway for his reintegration may be release to [Withheld]. But that is some distance away.
9. Parole is declined and Mr Buckeridge will be seen again in the week commencing 6 March 2017.
Hon. JW Gendall QC