New Zealand Parole Board -

 

Parole hearing

Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002

 

Daniella Kohuroa BOWMEN

Hearing: 3 June 2016 at (withheld)  Facility
 
Members of the Board: 
       Hon. MA Frater – Panel Convenor
       Assoc. Prof. P Brinded
       Mr J Thomson
       Mr L Tawera

Counsel:  
      [Withheld]

In attendance:  
      [Withheld]

Support People:  
      [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Daniella Kohuroa Bowmen is serving a life sentence of imprisonment for murder.  She and her co-offenders committed that crime on 1 April 1999 - seventeen years ago when she was 17 years old.

2. In the lead-up to today Ms Bowmen told the writers of the parole addendum report and the psychological report that she did not seek parole. 

3. At the hearing Ms Earl indicated that Ms Bowmen had changed her position, but, on enquiry we found that that is not the case.  Ms Bowmen’s [withheld] made it quite clear that she needs to undertake all available reintegrative activities before she comes home to live with [withheld], and we would support that.

4. Ms Bowmen was first identified for release in November 2013, but that decision was revoked a few days later. 

5. She was eventually released on parole on 17 February 2014, in [withheld].  She remained in the community for six months before being brought back to prison pursuant to an interim recall order made on 27 August.  Subsequently she conceded that the grounds for making a final recall order were made out and that order was made on 23 September 2014. 

6. The grounds for the recall order were that over a period of two months or more Ms Bowmen had been away from her approved address outside curfew hours and had consumed alcohol, in breach of her release conditions.  She had also formed a relationship with [withheld] in breach of the rules of the house she was living in and had breached a non-association directive with a [withheld].  Although she had support, she was not open and honest with her [withheld] – the providers of the [withheld], who was present today. Nor did she tell her Probation Officer what was really happening.

7. Ms Bowmen transferred to (withheld)  in November 2014.  Since then she has completed the [withheld] intensive alcohol and drug treatment programme.  Importantly, she has also undertaken 20 individual treatment sessions with a psychologist.  During those sessions they talked about the factors that led to her recall and worked on her release plan. 

8. The psychologist said that Ms Bowmen takes time to adjust to new experiences and needs more support than normal to do so.  She is assessed as posing a low risk of violent or general offending. 

9. Given her history, the nature of her index offence, the fact that she has spent half her life in custody and is proposing returning to live with [withheld], who she has not lived with for a long time and needs to build a new relationship with, we agree that Ms Bowmen has not yet reached the point where she can safely be released.

10. She is doing well in custody this time.  She has a minimum security classification and has recently moved to work in the external grounds party.  She has applied to move the [withheld] Units and participate in Release to Work.  We support all these activities.  We would also support temporary releases so that she can spend more time with and strengthen her relationship with [withheld].  Obviously, when and how these initiatives happen is a matter for the prison authorities. 

11. Today parole is declined.  Ms Bowmen’s next hearing will be during the week beginning 1 May 2017.  A Residential Restrictions Report is required for that hearing. 

12. Finally, for the sake of completeness, we note that we met with Ms Bowmen’s victims earlier this week.  They made it quite clear that they opposed her re-release.  However, if she were to be released they asked that it not be to the greater Auckland area.  Ms Bowmen accepted that. Indeed, her release plans take that into account. 

 

Hon. MA Frater
Panel Convenor