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

GREER - Kevan Beria - 19/04/2016

Parole hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002


Kevan Beria GREER

Hearing: 19 April 2016 By AVL from NZPB offices, Wellington to [Withheld]
Members of the Board: 
       Hon. J W Gendall QC (Panel Convenor)
       Ms M Coleman
       Mr D Hauraki

Support People: 


   1. Kevan Greer is serving a sentence of four years and six months imprisonment imposed in the High Court, Christchurch on 14 November 2013 for crimes of dealing to people under the age of 18 for sexual exploitation, (a representative charge);  Supplying class C cannabis to persons under 18 (representative charge), possession of class B drug Ritalin for supply, possession of a class B drug morphine for supply, and possession of cannabis class C for supply.

   2. His parole eligibility date was 30 January 2015 and his sentence end date is 27 January 2018.

   3. Mr Greer has a depressing criminal history since 1983.  He has 161 convictions which include multiple fraud crimes.  When last seen by the Board on 19 May 2015, he displayed limited insight in disclosure of his sexual offending, so the Board found it hard to identify the level of his risk.  Parole was then declined.

   4. Mr Greer’s crimes involved either paying money, or providing drugs, to adolescent girls whom he contacted outside their high school for non-contact sexual behaviour.  He photographed their breasts and genitals.  He denies selling them or giving drugs in return for such exposures.  We do not believe his denial.  His criminal propensity to deceive is illustrated in his extensive (over 100) fraud/deception related crimes.

   5. The psychologist’s report says he has no release proposal and remains a risk to teenage females because of his distorted beliefs and attitudes.  The recommendation is that he needs to engage in more intensive one-to-one counselling to gain an insight into his offending and develop a strong safety plan.

   6. The parole assessment report records that he is still waitlisted for one-to-one psychological counselling, although he had endeavoured to initiate private counselling.  He has completed the AOD brief and intermediate support programmes and is working with the ACC counsellor.

   7. He seeks parole and proposes that he reside with his wife and family, with whom he was living at the time of his index offending.

   8. His explanation for how he came to be in possession of the prescription drugs in the van searched by the police is implausible, and does not accord with the police summary of facts which records:
“In relation to the three pill containers containing Ritalin and Morphine Sulphate pills the defendant stated that he had found them and not looked inside them so was unaware of their contents”.
 He was either deceiving the police or us, or both.

   9. He has maintained a stance of minimising his offending in relation to its nature and frequency.  He illustrated to us his distorted perception – for example, in saying that the exposure by a young girl of her body did not sexually interest him.

   10. On his camera were 17 photographs of six girls in various states of undress.  He told us that some of these were taken at homes by some other person.  If true, it tends to suggest a sharing of such images between men.  There are some significant issues surrounding Mr Greer’s involvement in this pornographic exploitation of teenage girls.  

  11. However, the issue that concerns us is his risk of re offending. Whilst he has the strong support of [Withheld], Community Probation expressed reservations about him being presently released to that address because it was from there that he went about his offending activity and, as we have said, from there that he obtained the prescription drugs.  We are not satisfied that his risk is not undue.

   12. Very much more is required on the part of Mr Greer to address his offending behaviour, distorted beliefs and reduce his risk to something below undue.  In our judgment, it is of such a level that he does not meet the statutory criteria for release on parole.  What treatment is afforded to him is a matter for Corrections but it must be undertaken to reduce his risk. 

   13. Parole is declined and he will be seen again in the week commencing 6 March 2017.


Hon. J W Gendall QC
Panel Convenor