CROWLEY - Darryn John - 06/11/2012
CROWLEY - Darryn - 06/11/2012
Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002
Darryn John CROWLEY
6 November 2012
at (withheld) Prison
Members of the Board:
Hon. M A Frater – Panel Convenor
Judge I Thomas
Assoc. Professor P Brinded
Ms L Campbell
Mr A Ritchie
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1. Darryn John Crowley, aged 41, is serving a life sentence of imprisonment for a dreadful murder committed in 1992.
2. After being released on parole on 2 October 2006 he was finally recalled on 10 November 2010 on the third recall application.
3. This is his fourth appearance before the Board since the April recall order was made.
4. The parole assessment report indicates that Mr Crowley is a generally compliant prisoner and that he has made considerable changes during the past two years. This has been facilitated by two things – his participation in the building and construction course and the psychological counselling which he undertook with (withheld) .
5. Mr Crowley received an excellent report from the BCAT course run by (withheld). He is said to have a natural talent for working with timber. He has also benefited from one-to-one psychological counselling. The sessions have focused on the events which led to his recall. Mr Crowley is said to have engaged well with the counselling. Through the counselling he has identified the high risk behaviours which led to his recall and developed a system of personal interventions that he can use in the future to stop escalating towards offending.
6. Mr Crowley assured us that he is a very different person from the person who was released in 2006. In the intervening period, he has learned ways of dealing with his impulsivity. He can also identify when he is adopting a victim stance. His (withheld) provides a considerable incentive for him to avoid re-offending. He is committed to being there for her, and he spoke to us rather emotionally about that.
7. He is fortunate to have a very strong support network. They too have learned from the events of the last few years. They are now committed to being there for him for the long haul. They have a formal support structure, not only for him, but for each other. They meet regularly and are now much better aware of his high risk behaviours and have strategies in place to deal with them. They are keen to meet with his psychologist and Probation Officer and any others involved in supporting him to work out a common plan. For his part, Mr Crowley has a clear reintegration and safety plan and is committed to abiding by it.
8. He is also fortunate to have the offer of immediate employment with (withheld) . He was employed by this company when he was in the community last time and they have offered to re-employ him. The only issue is that some of the work may be at night time. Some of the company’s current work involves bringing existing buildings up to earthquake compliance and because the buildings are occupied, that work has to happen overnight. Mr Crowley was concerned that a curfew might preclude his involvement in this work. While we consider it is necessary for Mr Crowley to be subject to a curfew during the initial period following his release, we would support the relaxation of it to enable him to engage in employment if that were necessary, but obviously whether that happens should be a matter for his Probation Officer.
9. We also talked with Mr Crowley about victim issues.
10. He read the letter from one of the victims in which she reiterated her opposition to his release. He appreciates and respects her position. Indeed he understands it given the death of his own father.
11. Another victim issue concerns proximity of the victims’ father's home to the address where Mr Crowley intends to be released. We understand that although that victim lives nearby, he does not oppose release either generally, or to the proposed address.
12. We are satisfied that Mr Crowley has made considerable progress while in custody during the past two years to address the causes of his offending. He understands high risk situations and has strategies in place to deal with them. He also, as noted above, has a strong support network and the offer of employment which, of course, is important, not only for him, but for the safety of the community.
13. It is also important, from our perspective, that ongoing psychological counselling is available following release, and we understand that it will be.
14. Because of his static risk scores, Mr Crowley cannot lower his security classification below medium/low. At most it could be overridden to low. Because he cannot attain a minimum security classification he cannot progress to Self Care or participate in the usual reintegrative initiatives such as release to work and temporary releases.
15. In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that Mr Crowley has now reached the point where he will not pose an undue risk to the safety of the community if released on the conditions which we will impose. Accordingly, he will be released on Wednesday 28 November 2012 on the standard conditions which will of course, continue for life, and the following special conditions which will continue for five years post-release unless subsequently amended.
16. The standard conditions as set out in section 14 of the Parole Act 2002 are imposed for life.
17. The following special conditions are imposed until 27 November 2017:
(1) To attend for psychological assessment and thereafter such counselling as directed by your Probation Officer in consultation with the psychologist.
(2) To attend any other assessment/counselling/treatment/programme, including addressing substance abuse issues, as deemed suitable by and directed by your Probation Officer.
(3) To reside at (withheld) and not to move from that address without the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.
(4) To observe a curfew from 10pm to 6am daily at your residential address unless you have the prior written approval of your Probation Officer for work or other purposes.
(5) Not to have contact or otherwise associate with the family of the victim of your offending, directly or indirectly, unless you have the prior written approval of your Probation Officer.
(6) Not to consume or possess alcohol or non-prescribed drugs, or permit any non-prescription drug to be at your address.
(7) Not to possess a firearm of any description, including an air gun and any imitation firearm.
(8) Not to associate with Graeme Burton, Arthur William Taylor, Brendon Oliver or Heiko Kretzchmann or any other persons nominated in writing by your Probation Officer.
(9) To attend for a monitoring hearing before the New Zealand Parole Board in February 2013 at a time, date and venue to be notified to you.
18. We have not included a condition requiring a meeting of Mr Crowley’s supporters to take place following release, as proposed in the parole assessment report as we think it should be held before he is released. This should be attended by one or other or both of the psychologists who have been working with him and preferably also by his prospective Probation Officer and the psychologist who will work with him in the community. It would also be helpful if as many of his supporters - his mother, partner, and other relatives, and his prospective employer, attend the meeting as well. This will give Mr Crowley an opportunity to talk about his offending, his high risk situations and his safety plan and for the professionals and his supporters to formulate a strategy for moving safely forward.
19. Of course a written report from his Probation Officer is required for the monitoring hearing, which the Probation Officer should also attend.
Hon. M A Frater
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.