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

FENTON - Natalie Roselyn - 03/02/2012

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

Natalie Roselyn FENTON        

3 February 2012
at (withheld)

20 February 2012

Members of the Board:

Hon. MA Frater
Mr M Hakiaha
Mr A Ritchie
Ms L Nathan

Ms S Jocelyn for Department of Corrections

Support Persons:
(names withheld)


Natalie Fenton last appeared before the Board in November 2011.  At that stage she was making impressive progress towards release, but had further work to do on her release and relapse prevention plan and needed more opportunities to reintegrate.  The Board also asked for a residential restrictions report in relation to her proposed release address.

At the conclusion of the current hearing we told Ms Fenton that we would reserve our  decision to enable some of her registered victims to meet the convenor of the Board and put their views concerning her release and that of her co-offenders. 

The views of the victims have been stated quite clearly on a number of occasions, and Ms Fenton is well aware of them.  She continues to express considerable remorse for her actions and the effect on the victims.

She did not seek release.  Realistically, she accepted that in view of developments since the last hearing she could not.  Ms Fenton’s name came up under the random drug testing procedure.  She was required to provide a urine sample.  She was unable to do so.  She said that she has difficulty in this regard.  She knew that a great deal hinged on it and assured us that she had nothing to hide.  As a consequence, she has incurred a misconduct and now holds an IDU status.  Her security classification has increased from minimum to low/medium and she has been moved from the Self Care Units to the high security wing and, of course, all reintegrative moves such as release to work and temporary releases have been halted. 

Ms Fenton is dealing with the situation as best she can.  She is realistic.  She knows the rules and the consequences of breaching them, for whatever reason.  After three months she can apply to provide voluntary drug tests and to recover the lost ground.  She also needs to continue working on her release plan including, in particular, the issue of accommodation.

Although, at this stage, parole must be declined, given the nature of the breach which led to Ms Fenton retaining an IDU status, she should be scheduled to be seen again at the August sitting of the Board to review progress, but with no promises as to the outcome.  We support any steps to expedite her progress back to Self Care and release to work in the meantime.

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.