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

BAILEY - Paul David - 07/05/2013

BAILEY - Paul David 07 May 2013 

Parole hearing

Under Section 21 (1) of the Parole Act 2002

 

Paul David BAILEY
Hearing
07 May 2013 at (withheld)

Members of the Board
Hon. J W Gendall QC - Panel Convenor
Dr J Skipworth
Mr R Lewis
Mr D Bailey 

Decision of the Board

 

1.                  Paul David Bailey was sentenced to life imprisonment on 27 February 1992 for the dreadful murder and rape of a 15 year old school girl.  For the sexual violation crime he was sentenced to the then maximum term (less one year for his plea of guilty) to 13 years’ imprisonment.  Those crimes occurred whilst he was on bail on a charge of attempted sexual violation and to which he subsequently pleaded guilty and was sentenced on 9 April 1992 to a concurrent term of three and a half years’ imprisonment.  Mr Bailey was not then eligible for preventative detention for that crime because it had been committed prior to the index offending of murder and rape.

2.                  It transpired that later on 29 July 2005 Mr Bailey was sentenced on two further charges of rape and a representative charge of having sexual intercourse with a girl under his care and protection.  That offending was historic in the sense that it occurred between April 1989 and July 1990 when the child victim was between the ages of 12 and 14.

3.                  Mr Bailey’s dreadful history is that of deviant, sexual, violent offending towards young girls and women and since on remand for the crime of murder he has now been in prison for a total of 22 years.  His original parole eligibility date was 4 November 2001 and he has been considered by the Board on frequent occasions.  He has frequently waived his attendance since at least 2006.  He has been subject to a postponement order or a deferment on a number of occasions because he had not addressed his rehabilitative and treatment needs.  This included intensive work being necessary to deal with his violent propensity, drug and alcohol abuse and deviant sexual arousal. 

4.                  He had refused to undertake the [Withheld] child sex offender treatment programme and the Board had indicated to him this was a crucial step that he needed to undertake before he could even commence upon the possible pathway towards release. 

5.                  Mr Bailey was declined parole in both March 2006 and March 2007.  In the parole assessment report of 21 June 2007 he was reported of having made no progress since his last Board appearance.  He waived his right to appear before the Board in July 2007.  He was subject then to a postponement order for a period of three years.  He was to be seen again by the Board on 2 June 2010, but again he did not appear and signed a waiver.  At that time he had still declined to be interviewed for a psychological assessment and was refusing to undertake the [Withheld] child sex offender treatment programme and parole was declined.  He was given notice of a further possible postponement order which was made for a period of three years on 21 August 2010.

6.                  When making that postponement order the Board noted:

      “He was assessed as being at high risk of reoffending.  For some time it has been recommended that he attend the [Withheld] Child Sex Offender Treatment Programme Child Sex Offender programme.  He has declined to do that.  He has declined to take part in the processes involved in compiling and reporting to the Board.  We noted that on the most recent occasion he again declined to take part….”

      In short he has done nothing to reduce his risk of reoffending and remains at high risk.

      He has so much work to do to reduce his risk that we are satisfied that it is appropriate in this case to make a postponement order …. We think it should be made for the maximum period available.  There is a great deal of work for Mr Bailey to do in the light of his horrendous offending.  It is unlikely that over a period of three years he will have the time to both attend and complete the [Withheld] Child Sex Offender Treatment Programme Sex Offender programme to which we have referred and also to take the usual rehabilitative or reintegrative steps.”

7.                  Mr Bailey now comes before the Board after the expiration of the three years from the making of the last postponement order.  He now says that he has changed his stance.  He says that he will participate in programmes and is motivated to attend and participate in the [Withheld] Child Sex Offender Treatment Programme.

He is presently in the assessment process and will not be considered for acceptance into the programme proper until June of 2013.  Time alone will tell whether he is able to maintain the new stance.

8.                  The last psychological assessment of Mr Bailey occurred in April 2010 before the postponement order which emphasised that he was at high risk of further sexual or violent offending because of:

            “Mr Bailey’s disconnection from others, his self-entitled beliefs and desire for sexual gratification, his offence related beliefs regarding the acceptability of sexual violence, his lack of objectively assessed emotional regulation skills, and the presence of significant psychopathic personality traits, including superficiality, grandiosity, deceitfulness and a lack of remorse or empathy.”

9.                  The degree to which those views now apply remains uncertain.  Mr Bailey, in his answers to the Board, accepted that, untreated, he remains high risk to the community.  At the very least, it is a realistic view.  The Board of course does not have an up to date psychological report on Mr Bailey, as he is still in the pre-treatment assessment phase of the [Withheld] programme. 

10.              Clearly, Mr Bailey faces a lengthy period of treatment.  Successful participation in this programme and in other rehabilitative measures are essential.  We think his history of alcohol and drug abuse also needs to be addressed, even though he is inclined to dismiss that.  Very much more work requires to be successfully completed. 

11.              Parole is out of the question as he remains a high risk.  The issue of further postponement looms large.  Such an order cannot be made, however, at this hearing, but only at some later hearing after the required notice has been given to Mr Bailey.  He tells us he is not averse to postponement.  Nevertheless, the law is that certain steps must be taken by the Board before that can be considered.

12.              We record that the victims, and others in the community, continue to make submissions opposing release.  We have seen a registered victim who maintains strong opposition, which is understandable given the appalling natures of the crimes that were committed against a teenage girl.  We have given due weight to the voice of the victims.

13.              Parole is out of the question at the present and it is declined.  The issue of postponement will be considered at the time when Mr Bailey is next seen which will be in accordance with the statutory cycle.

Hon. J W Gendall QC
Panel Convenor

Review 
You may apply for a review of the Board’s decision under section 67(1).  The only grounds under which you may make an application for review are that the Board, in making its decision:
a)     Failed to comply with procedures in the Parole Act 2002; or
b)     Made an error of law; or
c)     Failed to comply with Board policy resulting in unfairness to the offender; or
d)     Based its decision on erroneous or irrelevant information that was material to the decision reached; or
e)     Acted without jurisdiction.
To apply for a review you must write to the Board within 28 days of its decision stating which of the above ground(s) you consider to be relevant in your case and giving reasons why you believe that ground(s) applies.

Reviews are considered on the papers only.  There is no hearing in respect of your Review Application.