YOUNG - Jordan Mitchell - 03/04/2018
Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002
Jordan Mitchell YOUNG
Hearing: 3 April 2018
at Hawkes Bay Regional Prison
via AVL from New Zealand Parole Board, Wellington
Members of the Board:
- Judge B Lovegrove – Panel Convenor
- Mr D Hauraki
- Mr R Gray
Counsel: Mr M Phelps
DECISION OF THE BOARD
- Jordan Mitchell Young is serving a total sentence of four years and one month imprisonment: two years and seven months on three charges of burglary with one month, concurrent, for receiving and, cumulative, a further 18 months imposed on appeal (reduced from three years) for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
- Mr Young was originally sentenced on 23 November 2016. His adjusted parole eligibility date was 7 August last and his statutory release date is 26 April 2020. He has a security classification of low and a Roc*Roi of .71509.
- This is his fourth appearance before the Board.
- Mr Young has been involved in the criminal justice system since he was 16. He is now 37. His first appearances were in the Youth Court in 1998 in relation to offending in the previous year.
- Mr Young has an eight-page criminal history. It is predominantly for offences of dishonesty, but he also has convictions for serious drug-related offending, driving offences, breaches, two previous convictions for attempting to pervert the course of justice, and further convictions for manslaughter and for injuring in circumstances where, if death had occurred, it would have been manslaughter.
- Mr Young completed the Drug Treatment Programme (DTP) on 27 October with a good report and it was also noted that a significant change had been noted in Mr Young since he returned from that programme. Whereas previously he was regularly filing complaints about Corrections decisions and Corrections staff, he has now stopped doing so.
- Through his counsel, Mr Phelps, Mr Young sought release on parole.
- At the hearing on 29 November 2017, the Board was concerned about his extensive and versatile history of offending and the part that drugs have played in it. The Board was also concerned about his manipulative behaviour as evidenced in his repeat convictions for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Based on these concerns, the Board asked for a psychological assessment to determine whether the RoC*Rol score accurately reflected his true risk and, if not, what it is. The Board also asked for guidance on his risk factors and whether the treatment he has undertaken in custody so far is sufficient to address that risk. If that was not the case, the Board needed recommendations as to further treatment, whether in custody or the community, and also required an assessment of the strength of his release plan.
- Today’s hearing focussed on the merit or otherwise of the psychological report completed by [withheld] dated 24 February 2018. The basis of the difference was that the report substantiated the position of the last Parole Board, in particular, and insofar as “many of his statements, when compared to file information, tended to be indicative of positive impression management. In addition, Mr Young employed cognitive distortions to justify and minimise his offending behaviour” and that he “is able to superficially discuss treatment ready concepts but does not engage in consistent behavioural change.” Finally, [withheld] determined that Mr Young was a high risk of further offending and that one on one counselling was recommended as the appropriate treatment. However, she noted that such an engagement would be superficial.
- Counsel, however, based on his initial submission for Mr Young to be released on parole today, was under the opinion that Clinical Psychologist [withheld]’s assessment report of February 2018 did not take full account of all of the existing reports for Mr Young, and also that some key people such as the DTP providers were not consulted. Mr Phelps went on to say that the provision of a further and independent psychological assessment could be done within two months and that all appropriate resources, references, and personnel would be used and consulted. The Board concurs with this strategy as a means of a way forward, although it may set a precedent of making further assessments if the intended outcome is not desired.
Judge B Lovegrove