New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Ahu Stanley TAYLOR

Hearing: 12 April 2022

at Otago Corrections Facility via MS Teams

Members of the Board: Judge G F Ellis – Panel Convenor

Ms T Sharkey

Dr G Coyle

Counsel:                                            Deborah Henderson

In Attendance:                                  [withheld] – Case Manager

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Ahu Stanley Taylor, aged 45, is serving a sentence of 10 years and eight months for attempted murder.  He was found guilty at trial. His appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.
2. He reached parole eligibility on 10 May 2020 and his sentence expiry date is 7 January 2026, so there is about three years and nine months still on his sentence.
3. The background papers tell us this was an unprovoked attack in 2015 on a stranger in which Mr Taylor repeatedly stomped on an inert victim's face and head.  He has a criminal history in Australia from 1994 to 2010 including serious violence.  He has one previous conviction for violence in New Zealand in 2012 and one subsequent for assault.
4. Mr Taylor was last before the Board on 7 December 2021.  The Board noted that there were conflicting reports and assessments of risk between the departmental psychologist and the private report that Mr Taylor had obtained from Mr Shirley.  The private report disagreed with the recommendation for a MIRP Group programme but the Board was clear that Mr Taylor required treatment and asked the psychologists to confer and to provide an update with a clear recommendation for his rehabilitative pathway.
5. We now have a further memorandum from the departmental psychologist dated 1 March 2022.  After consultation with the private psychologist the assessment of risk by the departmental psychologist is in the moderate risk category.  The Department considers Mr Taylor to be in the preparation stages of change and that he needs to demonstrate change over an extended period.  In the opinion of the departmental psychologist the MIRP is still considered an appropriate rehabilitative programme but he had declined assessment and prefers to continue with private treatment.  On completion of that treatment the Department is recommending that there be a review of his progress and of his safety plan by a departmental psychologist and a report to the Board.
6. Mr Taylor was represented by counsel. Ms Henderson appeared.  She noted the request from the Board previously for the psychologists to confer and she referred to the memorandum now before the Board.  In Counsel's submission the MIRP now appears to have been taken off the sentence plan.  Ms Henderson emphasised Mr Taylor's sense of frustration that he has now been working with the psychologist privately with some 55 sessions over a period of about three years and he does not yet know when an end is in sight.  Mr Taylor told us himself that he believes he is ready for release but he understands that the Board is looking for official confirmation of that by way of a psychologists report.
7. Mr Taylor engaged directly and respectfully with the Board.  It is clear that he is highly intelligent and is using his time as constructively as possible.  The attending PCO told us that he is progressing very well with the external credits he is working on and Mr Taylor told us that he is working both with [withheld] in [withheld] subjects with a view to a possible future career in a field [withheld] where he can pass on the benefit of his life experience to others.
8. Mr Taylor is proposing the address of [withheld]. The reports indicate that he is not interested in seeking employment because [withheld].  He does have family and whānau support here [withheld].
9. The Board understands Mr Taylor's sense of frustration but it was made clear to him that he needs to convey to the psychologist with whom he is working that the Department is awaiting some clear signal from the private psychologist that the treatment aspects of Mr Taylor's work with that psychologist are complete and a safety plan has been prepared sufficient to address and mitigate his assessed risk.  At that point the Department has recommended, and the Board accepts the recommendation, that there should be a review by a departmental psychologist of his progress and of his safety plan following completion of treatment.
10. The request was made and the Board supports the request that such a review be undertaken by a departmental psychologist different from the one who has provided the most recent report so that there is no room for any perception that the final assessment is other than objective.
11. For the present and until his treatment phase is completed and there is a clear release proposal before the Board and Mr Taylor has had an opportunity to undertake such reintegration activity as is available to him, he is considered still to pose an undue risk and for today parole is declined.
12. The Board will see him again in six months, a date to be set before the end of October 2022.  If the required work can be accomplished sooner then Mr Taylor may seek an earlier return to the Board under section 26.