IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE	
CRI-2018-409-000132
[2019] NZHC 3128	

BETWEEN	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Applicant	
AND	JAMIE RICHARD MEADOWS
Respondent	

Hearing:	27 November 2019	
Appearances:	P A Currie for Applicant
K Chalmers for Respondent	
Judgment:	28 November 2019	

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

Introduction

[1]	The Chief Executive of  the Department  of  Corrections has  applied,  under  s 107F of the Parole Act 2002 (the Act), for an extended supervision order (ESO) in respect of the respondent, Mr Meadows. The application also includes an application for intensive monitoring (IM) under s 107IAB. The ESO is sought for the maximum period of 10 years,1 while the IM is sought for the maximum period of 12 months.2

[2]	While the application is not opposed by the respondent in any respect, this Court must still be satisfied that the relevant criteria set out in s 107I(2) have been met, and must provide its reasons for making the order.3 Thus, while I made the order

1	Section 107I(4).
2	Section 107IAC(3).
3	Section 107H(6).
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v JAMIE RICHARD MEADOWS [2019] NZHC 3128 [28 November 2019]

when the matter was called on 27 November 2019 in Mr Meadows’ presence, this decision briefly sets out my reasons for doing so.

The legal framework

[3]	The application is filed under s 107F which provides:

107F	Chief executive may apply for extended supervision order

(1)	The chief executive may apply to the sentencing court for an extended supervision order in respect of an eligible offender,—

(a)	where the offender is subject to a sentence of imprisonment, at any time before the later of—

(i)	the sentence expiry date of the sentence to which the offender is subject that has the latest sentence expiry date, regardless of whether that sentence is for a relevant offence; and

(ii)	the date on which the offender ceases to be subject to any release conditions; or

…

[4]	An application can only be filed in relation to an “eligible offender” under the Act. Section 107C defines an eligible offender as an offender who is not subject to an indeterminate sentence, but who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a relevant offence and that sentence has not been quashed or otherwise set aside.

[5]	The grounds which must be met before the Court can make an ESO are set out in s 107I. These are:

107I	Sentencing court may make extended supervision order

(1)	The purpose of an extended supervision order is to protect members of the community from those who, following receipt of a determinate sentence, pose a real and ongoing risk of committing serious sexual or violent offences.

(2)	A sentencing court may make an extended supervision order if, following the hearing of an application made under section 107F, the court is satisfied, having considered the matters addressed in the health assessor’s report as set out in section 107F(2A), that—

(a)	the offender has, or has had, a pervasive pattern of serious sexual or violent offending; and

(b)	either or both of the following apply:

(i)	there is a high risk that the offender will in future commit a relevant sexual offence:

(ii)	there is a very high risk that the offender will in future commit a relevant violent offence.

…

[6]	An ESO must state the term of the order which may not exceed 10 years.4 Under s 107I(5) of the Act the term must be the minimum period required for the safety of the community in light of:

(a)	the level of risk posed by the offender in committing a sexual offence against children or young persons;

(b)	the seriousness of the harm that might be caused to the victims; and

(c)	the likely duration of the risk.

[7]	In making an ESO the Court must explain the reasons for the order being made, including the basis upon which the statutory test has been met.5

The respondent

[8]	Mr Meadows is 29 years old. He has an intellectual disability and has, in the past, been a compulsory care recipient under the Intellectual Disability Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation Act 2003. He is currently subject to an interim supervision order which came into force on 8 March 2019,6 was shortly before his sentence expiry date of 29 March 2019, which was also the date on which his release conditions ended.

[9]	There  is  no  dispute  that  Mr  Meadows  is  an  eligible  offender.     On     24 October 2017, he was sentenced in the Christchurch District Court to a total of two years one month’s imprisonment in respect of the following offences:7

4	Section 107I(4) of the Act.
5	R v Peta [2007] NZCA 28, [2007] 2 NZLR 627.
6	R v Meadows HC Christchurch CRI-2018-409-132, 8 March 2019 (minute of Nation J).
7	R v Meadows [2017] NZDC 24015.

(a)	sexual connection with a young person (s 134 Crimes Act 1961);

(b)	breach of conditions of intensive supervision (x 4) (s 70A Sentencing Act 2002); and

(c)	disturbing use of a telephone (s 112 Telecommunications Act 2001).

[10]	Mr Meadows is not subject to an indeterminate sentence and the sentences imposed on him have not been quashed or otherwise set aside. He was made subject to an interim supervision order before his release conditions expired and he has remained subject to that interim supervision order, so he is an eligible offender.

Have the grounds for making an extended supervision order been met, and if so, what terms should be imposed?

[11]	As outlined in the submissions of counsel for the applicant, the legal principles applying to the making of an ESO are helpfully summarised in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Kiddell v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, and I have taken those principles into account in reaching my decision.8

[12]	In addition, to assist me in determining whether an ESO should be made, a report was prepared by Dr Karla Mattson, a registered clinical psychologist in support of the application. That report was dated 5 September 2018. Because of the length of time since that report was undertaken an updated risk assessment has been undertaken. It is dated 7 November 2019 and it updates and replaces the original report. However, I note there is no material change in the risk-related traits exhibited by Mr Meadows between the two reports.

[13]	In Mr Meadows’ case, the ESO is sought on the grounds there is a high risk he will, in future, commit a relevant sexual offence. In deciding that, the Court must be satisfied of the factors set out in s 107IAA(1):

8	Kiddell v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2019] NZCA 171.

107IAA	Matters court must be satisfied of when assessing risk

(1)	A court may determine that there is a high risk that an eligible offender will commit a relevant sexual offence only if it is satisfied that the offender—

(a)	displays an intense drive, desire, or urge to commit a relevant sexual offence; and

(b)	has a predilection or proclivity for serious sexual offending; and

(c)	has limited self-regulatory capacity; and

(d)	displays either or both of the following:

(i)	a lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse for past offending:

(ii)	an absence of understanding for or concern about the impact of his or her sexual offending on actual or potential victims.

I now consider the evidence to support each of these criteria.

Does the respondent display an intense drive, desire or urge to commit a relevant sexual offence?

[14]	In her initial report, Dr Mattson concluded that Mr Meadows displayed an intense drive to commit further relevant sexual offences. In her updated assessment she noted that while Mr Meadows denies any specific intention to sexually reoffend, he acknowledges he would likely use a cell-phone to access pornographic or objectional material on the internet and/or to make contact with children via social media. She concluded that he has yet to demonstrate any significant change that would modify her initial finding as to his continued intense drive to commit sexual offences.

Does he have a predilection or proclivity for serious sexual offending?

[15]	Mr Meadows has a history of sexual offending against female children since childhood. He engaged in sexually abusive behaviour within his family home and welfare homes when he was a child and adolescent with behaviour ranging from sexualised talk through to vaginal rape of children. He has displayed sexualised behaviour towards strangers in their home. For example, in 2013 he entered a series of flats, went into a nine year old girl’s bedroom and touched her leg. He was later found with the girl’s underwear in his possession.

[16]	His most recent offending included making contact with a 14 year old girl who suffered from developmental delays, eventually meeting with her where he engaged in sexual behaviour. He has also contacted other young children asking for sexually explicit photos and/or underwear. I therefore accept  Dr Mattson’s  conclusion that Mr Meadows has demonstrated a longstanding, consistent proclivity towards sexual offending and it is sufficiently serious given that it is primarily directed towards children.

Does Mr Meadows have a limited self-regulatory capacity?

[17]	While Dr Mattson considered that Mr Meadows may have capacity for appropriate self-regulation, she noted he has chosen to repeatedly engage in anti-social behaviour  and  has  not  shown  an  ability  to   regulate   himself   independently. Mr Meadows has repeatedly accessed inappropriate material despite sanctions and he has repeatedly breached conditions imposed on him during residential care and whilst on intensive supervision. As she noted, he prioritises his desire for enjoyment in sexual fulfilment over adhering to the rules or consideration of others’ rights. I am satisfied he has limited self-regulatory capacity.

Does Mr Meadows display a lack of acceptance of responsibility or remorse for past offending?

[18]	It is apparent from Mr Meadows’ history that he has not demonstrated adequate responsibility or remorse for his offending, although this may be in part due to his intellectual impairment. His explanations tend to minimise the seriousness or dismiss the importance of his behaviour. In the updated assessment only a rudimentary reflection of responsibility and remorse was proffered and it was not considered adequate to mitigate any offending related sexual urges should they arise. In short, Dr Mattson concluded, and I agree, that Mr Meadows does not yet display adequate responsibility or remorse for his sexual offending.

Does Mr Meadows display understanding for or concern about the impact of his sexual offending on actual or potential victims?

[19]	At best Mr Meadows appears to have a superficial understanding of the extent of his behaviour and he seems to have less awareness of any impact that his behaviour

might have on victims. When he acknowledged the high likelihood that he would again access internet based objectional material and potential victims via social media, his affect when discussing these topics appeared positive, which Dr Mattson observed was “incongruent with any  understanding  of  the  gravity  of  sexual  offending”.  Dr Mattson observed no real developments in Mr Meadows’ insight into the impact of sexual offending on victims between the first interview and the updated interview, and her conclusion remained that he does not yet have an adequate understanding of the impact of sexual offending.

Is there a high risk that Mr Meadows will in future commit a relevant sexual offence?

[20]	Dr Mattson has interviewed Mr Meadows and also used a range of assessment tools to try and quantify his risk of further relevant offending. Her most recent report continued to assess him as being at “high risk of …. committing a further relevant offence while in the community”. She noted that if Mr Meadows does sexually reoffend, it would likely be related to him accessing female children via social media, before sexualising his contact with them and attempting to meet for the purpose of sexual offending. Given his prior behaviour, it is also possible that he will enter private residences during the night and attempt sexualised contact with female residents (children or adults).

[21]	It is clear that Mr Meadows has not demonstrated that he is willing or able to actively manage his own risk and there is little short-term prospect of him being able to meaningfully engage in treatment. Although he has been referred to both the STOP adolescent programme in 2004 and the STOP programme in 2011, he showed poor motivation for treatment and has not engaged constructively with the programmes. He has a high number of dynamic risk factors and limited internal capacity to manage that risk which is likely to continue in the longer term.

[22]	I therefore concur with Dr Mattson’s conclusion that there is a high risk that Mr Meadows will engage in relevant offending within 10 years of release.

Order and length of order

[23]	Based  on  the  information  provided  to  the  Court,  I  am  satisfied  that   Mr Meadows has or has had a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and that there is a high risk that he will in future commit a relevant sexual offence. He also poses a real and ongoing risk to the community.

[24]	Given Mr Meadows’ history, his limited intellectual capacity, and his failure to engage in treatment programmes to date, I am satisfied it is appropriate to make an order, as sought, for 10 years and to impose intensive monitoring for the maximum period of 12 months.

[25]	Accordingly, pursuant  to s 107I of the Act,  I make an  ESO for a term  of  10 years. I also make an order pursuant to s  107IAC  of  the Act  requiring the Parole Board to impose an intensive monitoring condition on the offender for a period of 12 months.

[26]	These orders are to come into force on 27 November 2019.

Solicitors:
Raymond Donnelly & Co., Christchurch K H Cook, Barrister, Christchurch