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

Ian Robert WILSON

Hearing: 18 February 2025

At Waikeria Prison via MS Teams

Members of the Board:

Judge G F Ellis – Panel Convenor

Mr Paul Elenio

Ms A Young

In Attendance: [withheld] - Case Manager

Support Persons: [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Ian Robert Wilson, aged 73, is serving a total sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment for sexual offending against boys aged 12 to 16.
2. Mr Wilson was a teacher at Dilworth School between 1971 and 1996.  He has been the subject of numerous complaints arising from his sexual abuse of boys at the school throughout that period.
3. In 1997 Mr Wilson was convicted on one charge relating to offending, which occurred in 1979.  He was sentenced to pay a fine.  It is clear that Mr Wilson represented himself to the Court as a first offender without any other offending.  He told the Board that he had not been asked about other offending, but he accepted that he had not disclosed anything out of shame, and from an attitude that he would never reveal anything that he did not have to.
4. Mr Wilson was convicted again in 2021 on a further seven charges relating to offending between 1975 and 1992, and he was sentenced to three years and seven months' imprisonment.  His sentence reflected the level of sentencing that was applicable at the time of the offending.  Again, he failed to disclose that there had been significant other offending before and following those dates.
5. In 2023 he was convicted on a further 19 charges related to offending between 1971 and 1992.  There were ten charges of offending against boys under 12, six charges of offending against boys aged 12-16, and three charges of offending against a boy over 16, and he was sentenced to a cumulative one year and 11 months.  The total offending was against at least 10 different victims, several of them who were repeatedly abused over a period of years.  Mr Wilson was aged between 20 and his early 40s, and he held a number of positions in the school, starting from junior master up to housemaster.
6. There has been much reported and much information given to the Board by victims of the Dilworth offending about a culture of abuse among masters at the school and the sentencing judge referred to the group of offenders who had been identified including former teachers, staff members and volunteers associated with the school, the boarding houses and the school’s Scout chapter. Mr Wilson has been asked about this before and he has previously informed the Board that he was not aware of any other offending by any other masters against any other boys.
7. We pressed him on that matter today following the meeting we had had earlier with one of his victims.  But Mr Wilson again stated to the Board, after reflection, that although he had heard rumours, he did not know for sure of any other specific offending by any master against any particular boy.  We have found that difficult to accept in the light of what we have heard directly from one of his victims and we are minded of the robust comments made previously by a convenor of the Board regarding Mr Wilson's [withheld] manipulative impression management.  There were aspects of that before us today.
8. We acknowledge the very direct submission made to the Board by the victim whom we met today.  He referred to findings in the Independent Inquiry report which referred to discussion between another master and Mr Wilson regarding abusive access to the boys and he told us that following such a discussion he had been ‘trafficked’ to Mr Wilson.  We had no reason to disbelieve him.  That man told us of other victims known to him who have not yet come forward.  He told us that he believed Mr Wilson continued to pose a risk to pubescent boys and that he should not have any further ‘discount’ from his sentence.
9. Mr Wilson was last before the Board on 21 August 2024.  The Board noted that he had undertaken psychological treatment.  The Board had asked for a psychological assessment of risk and an assessment of his release plans.  The Board referred to that report, expressing its concern that the approved accommodation proposed was only available for three months, and the Board wanted to know his plans thereafter.  The Board also expected him to work on a plan to deal with media attention.
10. The Parole Assessment Report (PAR) before us confirms that he completed a psychological intervention in September 2023, and his rehabilitative treatment is considered to have been completed.  He has developed a safety plan which has been presented to the Board and to his support group. Corrections are awaiting a response from [withheld] regarding accommodation but, as at the date of the PAR, they were unable to confirm the availability of a bed or advise a specific date.
11. Mr Wilson has developed accommodation options thereafter with the support of his group of friends, and there is some information of that now before the Board, and those plans have been discussed at a reintegration/whanau hui.  Mr Wilson is accepting of electronic monitoring of his whereabouts if that is considered appropriate.
12. Once a release address is identified, we would expect there to be some guided releases to introduce Mr Wilson to that address and put him in touch with relevant community services, as proposed in the PAR
13. We have also noted the psychologist's report from 10 June of 2024.  Overall, Mr Wilson has been assessed at a below average risk of sexual re-offending and that has had particular regard to the historical nature of the multiple offences for which he has been convicted and the passing of 30 years or more since there is any evidence of Mr Wilson being involved in such offending.  The recommendations are that he may benefit from further work with a psychologist after release, that he should do further work on his safety plan, and that he should work with his support network and make to them a presentation of his safety plan.
14. The support group behind Mr Wilson was represented at this hearing by [withheld].  We were told that [withheld] had also wished to attend the hearing but there was some technological problem with the online link, and he was frustrated from making that connection.  We acknowledge [withheld] part in the support group and are aware of his expertise as a clinical psychologist previously working with prisoners.  His input will be important for Mr Wilson, particularly in the further development of his plan to deal with media pressures.
15. [withheld] spoke on behalf of the support group.  He confirmed the support that is available to Mr Wilson and commented on the reconnection which Mr Wilson is believed to have made with his faith and the progress that he is believed to have made in acceptance of responsibility for his offending and his desire to deal with that.
16. Mr Wilson has continued to receive positive reports on his presentation and conduct in the prison.  It is said that he continues with a stable pattern of positive file notes, conduct and behaviour.  He has been working in the distribution centre.  There have been no issues.  The attending PCO said that he has maintained his minimum-security classification.  He is respectful, polite and compliant.
17. [withheld].
18. For the present, in the absence of a confirmed accommodation address and with work yet to be done to further develop his support network and in particular his plan to deal with media pressures, Mr Wilson is considered still to pose an undue risk.
19. For today parole is declined.  Indeed, it was not expected.  The Board will see him again in six months, a date to be set before the end of August of 2025.  The Board has noted in discussion with his Case Manager that if the accommodation issue can be resolved sooner and progress made on the development of his release plan, an application may be made under section 26.

Judge G F Ellis

Panel Convenor