TAYLOR - Hayden Joseph - 09/09/2016
Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002
Hayden Joseph TAYLOR
Hearing: 9 September 2016 at [Withheld]
Members of the Board:
- Hon. J W Gendall QC – Panel Convenor
- Judge A Kiernan
- Ms S Pakura
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1. Hayden Taylor is serving a life sentence for murder imposed on 20 November 1996. That dreadful murder occurred on 20 September 1996 at which time he was on bail having been charged with the rape and kidnapping of an adult woman on 30 April 1996.
2. He was later found guilty of those crimes and sentenced on them on 6 December 1997 to preventive detention. So he is serving a life sentence for murder of one woman and preventive detention for the rape of another which occurred five months before the murder.
3. Mr Taylor was last seen on 24 November 2015 when it noted that he had completed the Adult Sex Offender Treatment Programme and the [Withheld] programme. It noted that there remained elements of his continued denial of sexual deviancy. He told us today that he has addressed that issue but his responses to the Board on questions do not satisfy us that in fact he has.
4. He still denies that there was a sexual element to the murder of his victim, but there was a finding made by the sentencing Judge, Morris J, dated 16 September 1997 when imposing the sentence of preventive detention, that the probation officer’s opinion was that the victim had been sexually assaulted and Morris J who heard evidence on the issue (but not from Mr Taylor), made a factual finding that: “I am satisfied the murder was sexually related.”
5. Despite those findings and the actual evidence of the condition of the clothing of the victim, Mr Taylor maintains his denial that there was sexual element.
6. The Board, when it last saw Mr Taylor, assessed his risk as higher than that of the psychological report of 15 October 2015. The most recent parole assessment report states that Mr Taylor continued to believe he has addressed his sexual deviancy and still maintains that there was no such element in relation to the murder of the second victim but, we do not believe him.
7. He has had no further one-to-one psychological counselling since he was last seen by the Board and is yet to be assessed for Release to Work. He seems a little ambivalent in that respect. [Withheld], counsel, submitted that if Mr Taylor was not released on parole he wished the Board to express support for a pathway through Release to Work.
8. In seeking release on parole he says that he has available accommodation to [Withheld] but the assessment report says that, “The concern of Community Corrections as to the potential for serious harm is greatly escalated through such accommodation which is not supported.”
9. We are satisfied by a wide margin that Mr Taylor needs more and extensive reintegration activity whether in the form of one-to-one counselling (although we doubt whether he is going to alter his stance in respect of his sexual deviancy) but certainly in the form of Release to Work. He must attempt to prove himself across a wide range of situations in the community.
10. We have advised him of the views of his victims in respect of the several crimes and of their adamant opposition to his being released on parole. Of course that the decision must always be for the Board. We believe that Mr Taylor’s downplaying and minimising of his past sexual deviancy is of concern because we are satisfied he does not have the truth insight into his risk situations.
11. He is an undue risk to the safety of the community and parole is declined. He will be seen again on the month of November 2017, that is by 30 November 2017. In the meantime we express our support for any application that he may make for favourable consideration for Release to Work because, as with serious offenders such as he is, that is the necessary pathway.
Hon. J W Gendall QC