Postponement Order Consideration
Under section 27A(2)(b) of the Parole Act 2002
Peter Joseph HOLDEM
Hearing: 8 December 2016 at [Withheld]
Members of the Board:
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1. Peter Joseph Holdem is serving a life sentence of imprisonment for murder.
2. He was scheduled to be seen today to consider the sole issue of postponement. Requisite notice was given in the decision of the last Board on 15 June 2016 when parole was declined. Mr Holdem was also served with formal notice on 12 October 2016.
3. In the event, the hearing did not proceed. The day before the hearing we received a memorandum from a barrister, [Withheld] , seeking an adjournment to enable further enquiries to be made and instructions to be obtained.
4. In his memorandum [Withheld] said that he had advised his client not to seek parole today, but, of course, as previously noted, that was not on the table for consideration.
5. [Withheld] also said that he understood that if the adjournment application was granted the matter would stand down “for the statutory 12 months”. Again, that view is misconceived.
6. While the Board is minded to grant the adjournment application, it will not be for the full 12 month period as indicated by [Withheld]. That is because time runs for the making of the postponement order from the date on which parole was last declined.
7. The adjournment application is granted. The next hearing to consider the postponement issue only will be during the week beginning 28 May to 2 June 2017. As the previous Board did not provide a default date on which parole would be considered, it will be necessary for the next Board, if they do not grant the postponement order, to allocate another date when parole will be considered.
Hon. MA Frater