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

PATTERSON - Wayne Thomas - 05/06/2013

PATTERSON - Wayne Thomas -  05/06/2013

Parole hearing

Under Section 21 (1) of the Parole Act 2002


Wayne Thomas PATTERSON
5 June 2013 at (withheld)

Members of the Board
Judge R Callender
Mr R Lewis
Ms G Hughes

Decision of the Board


1.                  Before the hearing this morning with Mr Patterson the Board had read the paperwork.  The Board members were considerably troubled by certain annexures to Mr Patterson’s submissions to the Board about the possibility of employment in the Carterton area upon his release.  The Board was concerned as to the veracity of the letters, particularly the letter allegedly signed by Mr Paul Reynolds of the Carterton District Council dated 27 April 2013.  Our understanding is that that letter was directed to the New Zealand Parole Board in Wellington which, in its form, indicates that Mr Reynolds, on behalf of the Council, was confirming that Mr Wayne Patterson had been offered an interview with the possibility of employment with the Council in the Horticulture Department.  The Parole Board acknowledged receipt of that letter to the Carterton District Council.  It was then indicated by the Carterton District Council that they were unaware of the letter, that they had no employee named Paul Reynolds and that there was no Horticulture Department in the Carterton Council.

2.                  The immediate indication was that the letter was perhaps a forgery.  There are other letters of support of Mr Patterson from his sister in Australia and a nephew.  Those letters are written indicating that the writer was resident in (withheld) when in fact we are told today that they live in (withheld) Australia.  One of our concerns is that the typewriter seems to have been very similar in each case and that those letters may also be fraudulent.

3.                  Given Mr Patterson’s long history of dishonesty and the nature of his very grave offending, the Board is not prepared to consider him today for release on parole.  If he is the creator of the forged document he has quite obviously committed a grave additional criminal offence.  We, therefore, will refer this file to the Chairperson of the Board with the recommendation that a complaint be laid with the New Zealand Police and that an investigation of the documentation proceed so that the Board can be certain as to whether Mr Patterson is involved with the forged documentation.  We should say that Mr Patterson totally denies any forgery or false documentation.

4.                  The Board records all interviews with offenders for parole hearings.  We ask that the full transcript of today’s hearing be typed up and if the Chair of the New Zealand Parole Board thinks it appropriate that that transcript should also be provided to the New Zealand Police.  The Board questioned not only Mr Patterson but his father at some length about matters relevant to our current concern and those answers will be of significance and of value in any investigation.

5.                  Until these matters are resolved we believe Mr Patterson to continue to be an undue risk to the safety of the community.  We will adjourn the hearing now for three months to enable the police to make the necessary investigation if that is in fact the view of the New Zealand Parole Board Chair.

Judge R Callender
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.