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(1) of the Parole Act 2002

David Norman LEE

Hearing: 13 June 2024

at Rolleston Prison

Members of the Board:

Ms M Coleman – Panel Convenor

Ms F Pimm

Mr A Hackney

Counsel: Mr Andrew Bailey

In Attendance: [withheld] - Case Manager

Support Persons: [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. David Norman Lee, who is 53, appeared before the Board today for the first consideration of parole on a six-year sentence for the ill-treatment and neglect of his father, who was elderly and had dementia.  Mr Lee was also convicted of theft by a person in a special relationship.  In his role as holding a power of attorney over his father’s financial affairs, Mr Lee took $249,000 from his parents’ bank account, only 10 per cent of which was for his father’s own personal use.
2. The Judge described the conditions which Mr Lee’s father was kept in as inhuman and his treatment likely to cause him physical and emotional harm.  The Judge found that Mr Lee’s motive was to keep his father at home so that he could use the money that his parents had acquired for his own purposes.  Mr Lee’s father was locked in his room for long periods, every day.  The room was cold and Mr Lee’s father had no access to clothes and was often kept in a wetsuit which he was unable to remove.  He also had minimal access to food and water and was subject to verbal and physical abuse.  The Judge described his treatment as akin to torture.
3. Mr Lee accepted today that torture was an appropriate description of his father’s treatment which he agreed was horrific.
4. Mr Lee was represented at today’s hearing by Mr Bailey who also spoke briefly to those submissions.  The gist of what the Board was being asked to do was to request a psychological report to determine the appropriate treatment pathway.  Initially, Mr Lee had been identified for a Medium Intensity Rehabilitation Programme, but this was removed off his sentence plan and, instead, there was to be a psychological assessment for the appropriate treatment pathway.  The reasons for this were not provided and [withheld], his case manager, said she was not aware of the reasons for it.  She did indicate that the assessment would take place later this year.
5. Mr Bailey accepted that the risk assessment from the psychologist was appropriate and asked that the Board request one.  He also suggested that given Mr Lee’s assessed low risk and that it is unlikely that he will be in a position of caring for somebody or having access to their money where the same issues of neglect and theft would occur again, that he may be ready for parole.  Having read the Judge’s sentencing notes and having read the Parole Assessment Report [withheld], we do not necessarily share the view that the risk is low.  This treatment was horrific, to use Mr Lee’s own words, and so while the likelihood of it being repeated may not be high, the harm sustained, should there be any repetition, would be very high indeed.  Mr Lee’s entitled behaviour in prison [withheld] is also concerning.
6. [withheld].
7. As the Parole Assessment Report states, there is concern that this behaviour is offence-paralleling, as it shows a level of coercion such as is suggested in the Judge’s sentencing notes in relation to [withheld].
8. The other concern is the lack of transparency around his relationships. [withheld].
9. In all of these circumstances, the Board considers it is appropriate to call for a risk assessment.  That will take four months to get that report and we will see him when it is available.
10. Parole today is declined.  Mr Lee will be seen again in October 2024 and by the end of that month at the latest.