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

BOWMEN - Daniella Kohuroa - 17/02/2012

Parole Hearing
Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002


Hearing for Postponement Order
27(4)(b) of the Parole Act 2002

Daniella Kohuroa BOWMEN

17 February 2012
at  (withheld)

Members of the Board:
Hon M A Frater (Panel Convenor)
Judge B Lovegrove
Mr B McMurray
Mr T Paul
Associate Professor P Brinded     

Ms N Reynolds for Department of Corrections


Daniella Bowmen is serving a life sentence of imprisonment for the murder of Raymond Mullins in 1999. 

During the past year she has made significant progress. 

The reports of her behaviour and attitude at  (withheld) are mixed.  We note that on the one hand she incurred a misconduct for having prohibited items, including a cigarette lighter in her cell, and displayed a passive/aggressive attitude towards staff; on the other hand she is said to have demonstrated a good work ethic and high standards in her position as head cook in the CIE Kitchen,  she reduced her security classification to minimum and she remained IDU free. 

Then in July 2011 she transferred to  (withheld) where she successfully completed the Drug Treatment Unit Programme, graduating at the end of January this year.

The reports from her time in  (withheld)  are all positive. 

Ms Bowmen is enthusiastic about the Drug Treatment programme.  She said that it helped her deal with emotions which she had previously blocked out by drug use, to stop and think, and to distance herself from anti-social associates.  Importantly, she also, for the first time,  reflected on the victims’ position and, having putting herself in their shoes, acknowledged the validity of their comments. 

Since graduation Ms Bowmen has been in a mainstream wing,  although she goes back to the DTU for AA/NA meetings and to mentor new participants in the programme.  She is working on her release plan with a view to building support in the  (withheld)  area.  Although  (withheld) has offered accommodation in  (withheld), she has declined the offer. She believes it would be a retrograde step for her to move back to  (withheld).  Nor does she want to return to  (withheld).  She accepts that her reintegration needs to be taken carefully and slowly.  The next steps include a move to Self Care, release to work and temporary releases to her sponsor, the  (withheld).

The writer of the latest psychological report assessed Ms Bowmen as posing a moderate risk of reoffending and made a number of recommendations for the future.  They include developing a comprehensive release plan, transferring to the Self Care Units, participating in graduated temporary releases and work release, (if available), fostering relationships with family members to strengthen her support network, referral to a drug treatment agency within the community to be accessed for maintenance work from Self Care while on temporary releases, and developing more frequent communication with her son.  We support those recommendations, although note that her focus will be on developing supports in the  (withheld)  community, rather than with her family.

At this stage, parole is declined.  Ms Bowmen will be scheduled to be seen again in accordance with the statutory cycle.

However, because of the positive gains which she has made and continues to make, there is no question of making a postponement order, as mooted previously.

Hon M A Frater
Panel Convenor


•    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.