New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Gregory Howards MEADS

Hearing: 26 January 2024

at Tongariro Prison via MS Teams

Members of the Board:

Sir Ron Young – Chairperson

Ms K Coutts

Mr G Coyle

Prof. P Brinded

Counsel: Ms F Guy-Kidd

In Attendance: [withheld] – Case Manager

Support Persons: [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Mr Meads is 68 years of age and was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2011 for murdering his wife. His security classification is minimum. Mr Meads has not had any convictions prior or since the murder.
2. We last saw him in October 2023. At that stage Mr Meads had completed all of his rehabilitation and we were considering a possible release to [withheld]. However, shortly before that hearing we received significant feedback from residents in [withheld] who lived in the same street that Mr Meads wanted to be released to, strongly objecting to any release by Mr Meads in that area. We assessed what should appropriately be done, and after some editing arranged for those letters to be sent to Mr Meads and his counsel.
3. We saw Mr Meads prior to that in April 2023. As the psychologist noted on the previous occasion, Mr Meads was very focused on the technical aspects of the killing rather than the emotional. However, after long discussions with Mr Meads, both with the Board and a psychologist, he did accept that he had deliberately pulled the trigger and he had murdered his wife. The concern was that Mr Meads had not really progressed in terms of identifying the kind of emotions that were present in the weeks and months and days and hours leading up to the offending. That was very much intended to be the focus of the work that he would do. He did therefore undertake further work with a psychologist to try and address those issues. We are satisfied now that Mr Meads has dealt with those issues. He understands now the kind of precipitants that there were when he killed his wife. It will be important that he keep those ideas in his mind as part of his high-risk situations. We have previously said to him, this was an extremely serious murder that arose in very worrying circumstances essentially out of the blue.  He maintained a denial for many years, being unable apparently to face the fact that as someone with a self-image of a good, law-abiding person he had killed his wife.  He now seems to have come to terms with that.
4. We are satisfied that he is a low risk of re-offending. He has completed all of the rehabilitation that is required of him.  He does have extensive support in the community.  That includes not only friends but also family members, [withheld], who have also come to terms with his killing of [withheld].  In addition, [withheld] of Mr Meads who have been active as victims of the offending, have also come to terms with Mr Meads’ progress and also believe that the time has come for him to be released.
5. We are satisfied given all of the work he has done that he can now be released.
6. We record for fullness that we were only able to talk with Mr Meads in a very limited way today. There were a number of limitations relating to the audio connection and the video connection. We tried on a number of occasions to fix that. We did talk to Mr Meads for a short period of time. He then joined late in the discussion, shortly before the end of the hearing time. However, we decided that we had adequate information on which to make a decision for release. We may have taken a different view as to the process if we had decided Mr Meads could not be released. In those circumstances perhaps it might not have been fair or appropriate given the limitations on our discussions with him.
7. For the reasons given, he can now be released on parole. He will be released on 19 February 2024.  One of the important factors that we discussed with Mr Meads related to his residence. He accepted at the hearing that it would not be appropriate for him to be released to [withheld]. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way his potential neighbours felt, it would simply not be a safe and enjoyable place for him to be released. We think that was a wise decision. We consider it would not have been in his best interests to be released to [withheld] given the hostile reaction he would likely have received.
8. He had previously suggested a release to [withheld] and he can go back to [withheld] and so a special condition will be that he reside at [withheld].
9. As to the other special conditions suggested, with significant amendments we impose those set out in the parole assessment report.
10. The amendments are as follows:

(1) We do not think any form of residential restrictions are required that is an electronically monitored curfew. This does not relate to Mr Meads’ risk. So, we delete both the curfew and the electronic monitoring of the curfew.

(2) We maintain the whereabouts prohibitions, but we do not think it necessary to impose an electronic monitoring of them. We are satisfied on the evidence we have that Mr Meads will comply and if he does not, of course, he will understand that is exactly the kind of conduct that might likely get him recalled to prison.

(3) We will have a monitoring hearing and we will see him again in July 2024.

(4) We do not see any need for the employment provision. We do not think it is relevant to his risk.

(5) We impose a victim exclusion provision and so he must not contact the victims of his offending unless there is approval from a Probation Officer. However, we exclude from that [withheld] and [withheld], and [withheld]. There is a [withheld]. She lives in England, and we have invited through counsel contact from [withheld] to ask her whether or not she would also like to be in a similar situation to [withheld] and [withheld], to have open contact with [withheld] without him or her having to go through a Probation Officer. If that information can be provided before 19 February, then, if necessary, we will amend the release conditions.

11. All of the conditions will be for life, but we will review their length when we see him again in July 2024.
12. The Special Conditions are:

(1) Not to enter Matamata, Rotorua or north of Auckland as defined by a Probation Officer in writing unless you have the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.

(2) Not to have contact or otherwise associate, with any victim of your offending, except for [withheld] and [withheld], directly or indirectly, unless you have the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.

(3) To attend a psychological assessment and attend, participate in, and complete any recommended treatment as directed by a Probation Officer.

(4) To disclose to a Probation Officer, at the earliest opportunity, details of any intimate relationship which commences, resumes, or terminates.

(5) To attend a reintegration meeting as directed by a Probation Officer.

(6) To reside at [withheld], Tauranga, or any other address approved in writing by a Probation Officer, and not move from that address unless you have the prior written approval of a Probation Officer.

(7) To comply with any direction made under section 29B(2)(b) of the Parole Act 2002 to attend a hearing at a time and place to be notified to you.