HARRISON - Hogan Tama Paul - 15/03/2016
Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002
Hogan Tama Paul HARRISON
Hearing: 15 March 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 P Elenio
Ms M Coleman
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1. Hogan Harrison is serving a life sentence imposed on 22 January 2002 for murder for which he also received a 12 year minimum non parole period. His parole eligibility date was extended to 5 April 2013 because he had two convictions for possession of cannabis and cannabis oil in February 2013, whilst in Prison.
2. Mr Harrison was last seen by the Board on 29 April 2015 where it noted that he had a diagnosis of [Withheld] but was being managed on medications. He had, at that stage, completed the STURP and Drug Treatment Unit Programmes and was at a stage of requiring reintegration activities, whether in the form of Self Care, Release to Work or temporary releases.
3. Since then, he has been housed in Self Care and an application is currently before the Prison management for the Life Skills Programme which is to be implemented at [Withheld] and this application will be heard on [Withheld] 2016.
4. The PCO advises us that if Mr Harrison is successful being admitted on to this programme and completes it, then the next step in his reintegration activity would possibly be Release to Work application made to the High Risk team for its recommendation to Prison management. The psychological report notes that Mr Harrison has a [Withheld] type and he needs a positive solid release plan with significant social support. The psychologist’s view is that he should be, in due course, considered for Release to Work and home leaves.
5. A psychiatric assessment has been undertaken on behalf of Mr Harrison’s counsel because of uncertainty over his [Withheld] diagnosis. That report from [Withheld] is now presented to the Board by [Withheld]. Essentially, it says that there is no evidence of active [Withheld] currently although the diagnosis of [Withheld] is sustainable, on balance. However the [Withheld] says there is no need for ongoing [Withheld] involvement.
6. Counsel has advised us that Mr Harrison is not seeking parole as he accepts the need for community-based reintegration and because he is of minimum security classification, he is able to make applications for progress in that area. [Withheld] has asked us to specify pursuant to section 21A(b) that Release to Work is to be completed by the specified date. We think it preferable simply to observe that, as has been signalled by the psychologist, by [Withheld], as well as by Mr Harrison’s PCO, that reintegration measures are necessary with a positive pathway forward being through the Life Skill Programme and thereafter, Release to Work, if it is approved by Prison management. That decision is the sole prerogative of management.
7. There will be a significant period during which Mr Harrison will need to be tested across a range of situations. Accordingly, we propose that parole be declined, and he will be seen again in the week commencing 8 August 2017, or as soon thereafter as is possible.
Hon. JW Gendall QC