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

STONEHAM - Shane Frederick - 27/11/2015

 

Parole hearing

Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002

 

Shane Frederick STONEHAM


Hearing: 27 November 2015  via AVL from [Withheld]

Members of the Board: 

     Alan Ritchie – Panel Convenor
     Mr B McMurray
     Mr J Thomson
     Ms S Pakura

In attendance:   [Withheld]  (Corrections – Psychologist)

Lawyer:            [Withheld]

Support People:  [Withheld]
 


DECISION OF THE BOARD


1. Shane Frederick Stoneham, 31, appeared for the first consideration of parole on a sentence of preventive detention for sexual connection with a young person aged 13.

2. The prison security classification is low/medium and the RoC*RoI 0.69302.

3. Mr Stoneham pleaded guilty to the index offending.  He says the victim told him she was 16.  They met on a chat line.  He introduced her to the Probation Officer (Mr Stoneham being subject to an extended supervision order) who warned him about the association being in breach of a condition but Mr Stoneham persisted.  It is plain that the Probation Officer had no doubt about the age of the victim.

4. All of this was in the context of a significant history of similar offending.

5. There is a psychological assessment report.  It is dated 30 September 2015.  It rates risk as high for sexual re-offending.

6. The psychologist observed that Mr Stoneham knows that the pathway is likely to be a long one and that he needed improved conduct, completion of treatment, a comprehensive release plan and gradual reintegration activities.

7. Mr Stoneham is on the waiting list for the [Withheld] Child Sex Offender Programme and for individual psychological intervention to improve his interpersonal skills and mood management which can run parallel to the group treatment.

8. [Withheld] confirmed to us that parole was not being sought.  She said Mr Stoneham had developed significant motivation to complete the recommended treatment.  He had enhanced his prospects by a good improvement in behaviour.  All of that is good to hear given documented evidence of a resistance in the past to serious engagement with Community Corrections and at times a highly non-compliant attitude.

9. It seems that Mr Stoneham is dispelling doubts about his ability and willingness to comply with what is expected of him.

10. Certainly he is quoted in the reports as saying he wants to do the CSO “properly this time” saying, “I’ve grown since last time”.

11. He made a succinct statement to us confirming that.

12. We are told that the CSO may not be scheduled for him until 2018.  We hope that it may be earlier to take advantage of the current motivation.

13. We have considered when we should see Mr Stoneham again.  We will schedule that for August 2017.  We appreciate that that is ahead of present scheduling for the CSO but it is done in the hope that such scheduling can be brought forward.  Indeed, in accordance with section 21A (6) of the Parole Act we are specifying as a “relevant activity” the Child Sex Offender Programme whether it be at [Withheld] or elsewhere.

14. In accordance with section 26(3) of the Parole Act we note that the date we are scheduling may be advanced if the prison manager notifies the completion of the relevant activity and a referral is made by the Board’s chairperson or a panel convenor for the consideration of parole.

15. A full psychological report will be required for the next hearing.

 


Alan Ritchie
Panel Convenor