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

TAYLOR - Hayden Joseph - 24/11/2015

 

Review of section 107 order
Under section 107(6) of the Parole Act 2002

And

Conditions hearing
Under section 104 (FRD) of the Parole Act 2002

 

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

and

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

 

Hayden Joseph TAYLOR


Hearing: 24 November 2015  at [withheld]

Members of the Board: 

      Alan Ritchie – Panel Convenor
      Assoc. Prof P Brinded
      Mr B McMurray
      Mr J Thomson
      Ms S Pakura

In attendance:     [withheld]  (Corrections – Psychologist)

Lawyer:                [withheld]

Support People:  [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD


1. Hayden Joseph Taylor, 39, appeared for the further consideration of parole on his life sentence for rape in April 1996 of one victim and then, while on bail in respect of that offending, the murder of another victim in September 1996.

2. There is no other recorded criminal offending.

3. The prison security classification is minimum and the RoC*RoI 0.58898.

4. On 10 December 2014 the Board noted the completion of the ASOTP and the STURP programmes along with regular engagement with a psychologist.

5. At that hearing there was further focus on whether Mr Taylor had properly acknowledged and addressed the sexually deviant aspects of his offending.  The Board said that the elements of sexual deviancy and the question of high risk situations were issues which had to be addressed before there could be any reinstatement of reintegrative activities.  The Board said those issues went to the heart of the risk of serious re-offending.

6. We have a psychological assessment report dated 15 October 2015.  The report made it plain that Mr Taylor continued to deny the sexual component in the murder.

7. The psychologist rated risk as moderate for general re-offending and moderate to low for sexual re-offending.

8. There were several recommendations including a wh?nau hui, that Mr Taylor practice skills of “perspective taking”, practice his self regulation skills, and continue with reintegration as available.

9. The psychologist said that further psychological intervention was not considered necessary.

10. In his submissions to us [withheld] identified those very issues of sexual deviancy and high risk but emphasised that since the last Board there had been further psychological reports and work on relapse prevention and management of risk.  There had been numerous sessions with a psychologist.  Interestingly [withheld] said there was an acknowledgment of and element of sexual deviancy which had been explored in recent reports and no further follow up was required.  He quoted the most recent psychological report saying:
 “There is little evidence of sexual deviance and Mr Taylor has engaged in treatment to address those factors which are considered to be particularly salient in his risk of recidivism.”

11. The thrust of [withheld] submissions was two-fold.  First, Mr Taylor was opposed to the making of a postponement order for which the necessary statutory notice had been given.  [withheld] said that there had already been progress in terms of section 27 and that would continue.

12. Secondly, [withheld] said that parole was being sought.  In that connection he referred to the extensive periods Mr Taylor had spent outside the prison, significant numbers of home leaves (up to 72 hours), some 70 or more shopping leaves, two visits to hospitals and 18 months on work.

13. [withheld] also emphasised that the regression from Release to Work and other reintegrative activity was no fault of Mr Taylor and it was to his credit that Mr Taylor had handled the disappointment of that very well.

14. [withheld] referred to an acceptance by Mr Taylor of the prospect of some form of electronic monitoring and to the likely availability of supported accommodation through the [withheld].

15. There can be no question but that Mr Taylor has very positive aspects to his imprisonment.  Inevitably, however, cases like this pose a considerable challenge for the Board.  In the end we simply have to do our best to assess all of the information in front of us and try to reach a decision on whether risk is undue or not.

16. In this particular case we have struggled reconciling the horror of the crimes with the assessment of risk reached by the psychologist in the report of 15 October 2015.  We believe the risk could be much higher and we have reached that view with the benefit of our searching discussion with Mr Taylor today and with the benefit of very firm views expressed  to us by victims.

17. We have had regard to the fact that previous Boards even at the height of Mr Taylor’s involvement in reintegrative activity remained concerned about an underlying risk factor on which we have to be satisfied having regard to our paramount consideration for the safety of the community.

18. We have not been able to reach that point today.  Parole is declined.

19. The remaining questions therefore are when Mr Taylor should be scheduled to be seen again and what further rehabilitative or reintegrative activity we would support or recommend.

20. On the first question we are not making a postponement order.  We are accepting [withheld] submission in that regard.

21. We will, however, schedule Mr Taylor to be seen again in September 2016 and in any event by no later than the end of that month.

22. On the second question of reintegrative activity we acknowledge the difficulty [withheld] and leave matters simply by way of acceptance of the recommendations of the most recent psychological report that there be such reintegrative activity as may be available.

23. The next Board will require a Psychological Report.

 


Alan Ritchie
Panel Convenor