MANGLES, Jarrod - 26/03/2015
Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002
Jarrod Allan MANGLES
Hearing: 26 March 2015 (withheld)
Members of the Board:
Ms K Snook – Panel Convenor
Assoc. Prof. P Brinded
Mr A Shaw
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1. Jarrod Allan Mangles, 42, appeared for a further consideration of parole in relation to his life sentence for a murder committed in 1987 when he was 15.
2. The crime remained unsolved for 16 years until DNA evidence established that Mr Mangles had committed the crime. Mr Mangles pleaded guilty half way through the trial.
3. Mr Mangles’ sentence commenced on 6 April 2004, he was eligible for parole from 24 March 2013, and he has a RoC*Rol of 0.75093.
4. Mr Mangles is consistent in his claim that he has no memory of the murder. This may be because he was consuming alcohol and drugs at the time and/or because of a very serious head injury received in around 1998.
5. In advance of the hearing we received written submissions from representatives of the victim of Mr Mangles’ crime.
6. We also met with some of those representatives prior to seeing Mr Mangles today.
7. Mr Mangles was shown copies of the written submissions in advance of the hearing.
8. It is clear that the offending has caused a great deal of suffering to the deceased’s family. The family members impressed on the Board the extent to which the crime affected and hurt all members of the family.
9. In their view Mr Mangles remains a risk. One of the reasons for this is that the life he led prior to coming into prison and from an early age was antisocial and criminal. He does not know any other life and it will therefore be very difficult for him to reduce his risk and achieve a successful reintegration as a law abiding citizen.
10. Mr Mangles has been the subject of a postponement order made on 6 May 2013. As a result he was last seen for the consideration of parole on 13 March 2013.
11. The recommended way forward at that time was for Mr Mangles to attend the DTU followed by the STURP programme.
12. To his credit Mr Mangles completed the short intensive DTU on 30 August 2013. The Board understands that Mr Mangles received a reasonable report about his participation on the programme.
13. He was seen as a quiet member of the group but had a good attitude. It is clear from reading the material that we have that it was not easy for him to participate but he did demonstrate an ability to successfully manage a situation where he was not entirely comfortable.
14. Alcohol and drugs are a risk factor for Mr Mangles. This is clear from the circumstances of the murder and in relation to the further approximately 80 convictions and 27 prison terms Mr Mangles accumulated between the date of the murder and his conviction for it 16 years later.
15. Mr Mangles said that while he learnt a few behavioural strategies on the DTU he feels that he did not gain much from that programme in relation to his actual drug use.
16. Having completed the DTU he contends that he has issues with group treatment. Part of this may relate to the fact that he had a head injury. This has led to resulting blindness in one eye, a hearing impairment, and a difficulty processing multiple sources of information at once. Certainly that was referred to by the psychologist in the latest report we have seen as being a possible impairment to group participation.
17. Other issues may also be relevant. Mr Mangles told the Board that he has personal issues which arose from his time in state care as a young person. Some of those issues may mean that it is difficult for him to be completely honest and open in a group environment.
18. The Board referred Mr Mangles to the possibility of addressing some of these issues through ACC counselling. Information regarding the process for accessing that is available from Mr Mangles’ case manager or PCO.
19. Despite an awareness that Mr Mangles may have difficulty in a group environment the primary rehabilitative option recommended by the psychologist in the report dated 29 January 2015 continues to be the STURP programme.
10. Completing the same sort of rehabilitation via one to one psychological counselling is:“Not currently supported as Mr Mangles continues to have the opportunity to attend STURP.”
21. There would also need to be extensive work on a reintegration plan for Mr Mangles after a lengthy time in the prison environment.
22. Mr Mangles appeared despondent to the Board today about the way forward. One of the reasons for that is that recent policy changes from the Department of Corrections resulting from the high profile escape of another inmate have meant that his work outside the wire on the prison farm has ceased. It is clear that he was gaining a lot from that work.
23. We understand from the reports that Mr Mangles’ primary strategy in dealing with his low mood and to avoid any potential conflict is to isolate himself.
24. Mr Mangles remains ambivalent about completing the STURP programme. He also appeared to be more ambivalent now about doing some further work with the psychologist with the aim of preparing him to go into a group environment such as the STURP.
25. A way forward may be for Mr Mangles to first obtain some assistance with counselling via ACC and to follow that up with further one to one psychological counselling in the prison with the ultimate aim of preparing him for attendance at the STURP in the future.
26. In many ways any progress relies on Mr Mangles regaining a positive mood and motivation to take steps to work toward his own rehabilitation. We can do little more than support that occurring as soon as possible.
27. At this time Mr Mangles has not completed any intensive work directed at reducing his risk of violent offending. Risk remains undue. Parole today is declined.
28. The Board will see Mr Mangles in the usual statutory cycle.
Ms K Snook