New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

 

Dean Hugh Te Kahu WICKLIFFE

Hearing:     7 April 2016 [withheld]
 
Members of the Board: 
      Hon. JW Gendall QC – Panel Convenor
      Judge JP Gittos
      Assoc. Prof. P Brinded
      Mr L Comer

In attendance:  
      [withheld]
      [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Dean Wickliffe is serving a life sentence imposed on 3 May 1972 for the crime of manslaughter, that crime being substituted by the Court of Appeal in 1986 for a conviction for murder.  His parole eligibility date has been adjusted on frequent occasions (and was last fixed at 27 July 2014) because of his multiple offending over an extensive period in a variety of ways whilst on parole.  There included serious aggravated robbery, and also methamphetamine-relating offending, for which led to a seven year finite sentence.

2. Mr Wickliffe has a total of 48 convictions, 32 of them whilst on life parole.  He was last seen by the Board on 26 June 2015 which noted that he was not motivated or interested in a Drug Treatment Unit programme. He said he did not have alcohol or drug issues.  At that time the Board said that Mr Wickliffe had not satisfactorily addressed his offending and maintained the stance that he simply did not wish to re-offend again.  The Board said that he had no adequate release plan.  At that time a previous psychologist report had said that Mr Wickliffe was not always forthright, engaged in some impression management and there had been some active deception of Corrections staff.

3. Since that time Mr Wickliffe has engaged in one to one psychological counselling which has progressed well.  Other than that, there has been no change in his position although he expressed disappointment that the psychologist’s report had “stitched him up”.  The recommendation from the parole assessment report is that more one to one counselling is necessary.  Mr Wickliffe is waitlisted to move into Self Care when eligible.  He says that he would like the opportunity of having Self Care but says that he has been told that he is “too old” for this.

4. The most recent psychological report notes that Mr Wickliffe has spent a significant proportion of his adult life in prison but:
It appears that he is well engaged in psychological treatment, prosocial endeavour and with prosocial goals for the future.  In this writer’s opinion he would benefit from the opportunity to be accommodated within a Self Care environment, both as a means of preparing himself for any eventual release that the Parole Board might grant but also as a means of demonstrating his behavioural compliance and ability to more independently manage on a day-to-day basis. 

5. Nevertheless Mr Wickliffe, seeks parole. He has proposed accommodation and employment in the [withheld]  area.  We have concerns about release to that area given his proclivity to offend whilst on parole in that area.  Leaving that aside for the moment, it is clear that he remains an undue risk to the safety of the community and would benefit from continued one to one counselling, moving into Self Care and we endorse that as a suitable reintegration pathway.  In our opinion he does not meet the statutory criteria for release on parole and it is declined.  He will be seen again in the week commencing 13 June 2017.

 

Hon. JW Gendall QC
Panel Convenor