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

TAYLOR - Brian Frank - 14/08/2018

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002

Brian Frank TAYLOR

Hearing: 14 August 2018

at Auckland South Corrections Facility

Members of the Board:

  • Judge N MacLean (Panel Convenor)
  • Ms G Hughes
  • Mr P Elenio

Support Persons:

  • [withheld]
  • [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

  1. Brian Frank Taylor is before the Board for the first time for consideration of parole.  He is serving a sentence of six years, following conviction on a charge of failing to protect a vulnerable adult.  His sentence commencement date was 28 November 2016 and he became eligible for parole on 6 August.  His end date is 4 August 2022.
  2. He was accompanied today by [withheld].  He has a security classification of low and also a low RoC*RoI of 0.0121.
  3. The background to the offending is quite complex.
  4. The Board questioned him closely on a number of points, in particular focusing on how it was that he did nothing in a situation when it must have been plainly obvious to him that the victim, who was in effect a type of lodger in the home of he and his wife, was in a sadly deteriorating state.
  5. He has never been in prison before.  He unsuccessfully appealed his sentence.
  6. The Board was troubled by what seemed to be a minimisation of his role, bordering on a denial of responsibility.  He does say that he feels the whole situation was horrible and that he should have done something but seemed to strike a barrier in actually acknowledging the horror of what was going on plainly before his eyes and as summed up in the Judge’s sentencing notes.
  7. His wife, who received a slightly longer sentence than him, is in the women’s prison here at Wiri.  Apparently, they communicate by letter and not by telephone.
  8. He does anticipate in due course that if and when she is released, she would reside with him.  In the meantime, he proposes to live with [withheld].  The likelihood would be if his wife were released at any time in the relatively near future, that could be the address proffered for her.
  9. There are no rehabilitative programmes planned for him in the prison, partly because of his low RoC*RoI and partly, as we are advised by the Principal Corrections Officer, because of, to some extent, the element of perceived denial.
  10. The Board found Mr Taylor’s response to various challenging propositions rather troubling but at the end of the day has to step back and make a realistic assessment of the risk to the community if he were released.
  11. It was helpful to hear more from [withheld] about the dynamics of the domestic relationship and the convoluted and complex pattern of life in the home with one Cindy Taylor who had responsibility for the lady who died, Mrs Dung.  Then, the relationship between Mr Taylor’s wife and Cindy Taylor (who is not related but adopted their family name).
  12. When we step back and assess whether there is an undue risk to the community, we are of the view that there is not an undue risk.
  13. We are also conscious of the fact that consideration of his wife’s parole will be coming up shortly.  We are going to release him on parole but have tailored the release conditions to try and accommodate the potential problems that might arise, if and when that arises.
  14. Accordingly, he will be released on parole as at [withheld] August on standard and the following special conditions with the special conditions on release to run for two years from the date of his release.
  15. It is appropriate to make some comment about the reason why we have provided the non-association with the co-offender special condition.  We are conscious of his plans in due course to re-establish the relationship with his wife.  Without in any way prejudging the situation, we are not absolutely sure that that is necessarily something that will happen.  If it is to happen, we feel there needs to be a control mechanism, i.e. through the probation officer, who if satisfied with any future proposal for cohabitation, could allow or deny or approve that on appropriate conditions.  It is not intended as a total blanket prohibition, simply tailored to meet the situation for the future.

    (1) Attend a whanau/family hui at an approved venue within a time frame to be determined by your Probation Officer.

    (2) To undertake and complete appropriate treatment or counselling to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer and treatment provider.

    (3) To reside at [withheld] and not to move from that address without the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.

    (4) Not to communicate or associate with any co-offenders of your offending unless you have the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.

Judge N MacLean
Panel Convenor