New Zealand Parole Board -

There is an order prohibiting publication of the name, address and occupation or

identifying particulars of the offender and/or victim.

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Christopher Dean MATTHEWS

Hearing: 25 January 2024

at Rolleston Prison via MS Teams

Members of the Board:

Sir R Young – Chairperson

Ms K Coutts

Mr G Coyle

Prof. P Brinded

In Attendance:  [withheld] – Case Manager

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Mr Matthews, who is 56 years of age, was sentenced to preventive detention in 2010.  The convictions in 2010 were unlawful sexual connection x2, abduction and assault with intent to commit unlawful sexual connection as well as disabling.  In addition, Mr Matthews has convictions for rape in April 1991 and June 1991. The most recent offending which resulted in the preventive detention involved offending against a stranger and offending against [withheld]. Both involved significant violence, as did the earlier rape convictions.
2. We saw him last in August 2022. He participated in the Kia Marama programme but there was concern that he had only made modest progress. He was in the graduates’ group.  We thought further work was needed and there were a number of areas identified where further work was required to reduce his risk.
3. As to the current position, the psychologist said only modest improvement had been made.  Mr Matthews consistently had denied experiences of anger and emotion which, in the view of the psychologist, was fundamental to his sexual offence processes and that the primary motivation in his offending was to hurt victims rather than sexual gratification. The problem was that Mr Matthews’ denial of anger meant that he had not really addressed the dynamic risk factors that were relevant to his offending. After a discussion with a psychologist, and to a degree a provocation of Mr Matthews, Mr Matthews it seems did finally accept that anger had played a major part in his previous offending and so further significant rehabilitation work needs to be undertaken by Mr Matthews to address this risk issue. Now that is accepted, he can begin work with the psychologist dealing with those issues, and as we understand it, that can commence reasonably soon.
4. The psychological report notes that a suitably experienced psychologist familiar with working constructively with high-risk individuals is going to be required and it will be necessary to provide Mr Matthews with regular opportunities to express and understand his emotions.  It would only be after that work was successfully completed that he could be considered for less structured environments.
5. We hope that then there will be a significant period when he can show consistent behavioural change. The way forward now is for him to undertake that work and then once that is completed to the satisfaction of the psychologist, then he can begin on the reintegrative process.  As will be seen, that will take significant time.
6. Finally, we mention Mr Matthews’ understanding that he cannot be released to the Christchurch area, and he is looking at possible accommodation in Dunedin. The fact that he has been apparently on the waitlist on [withheld] and that they will accept him has been noted by his case manager. Suitable accommodation is obviously some time away, but we currently doubt that [withheld]  would adequately meet Mr Matthews’ risk and we think it more likely that he would be a candidate for [withheld]  or similar in Dunedin.
7. We will see him again in July 2025.