Sex offender’s case tests parole terms
In a decision issued in November Justice Cheryl Gwyn decided the board had not applied the proper tests to the issues.
The case of a sex offender facing the possibility of life-long parole restrictions raises issues about the way the Parole Board assesses the need to impose special conditions, the Court of Appeal has been told.
Brett David Grinder was sentenced 20 years ago to preventive detention for sex offences against children and young people spanning 1976 to 2001, according to a High Court judge’s decision.
A preventive detention sentence is open-ended and carries with it lifetime parole, if the offender is released.
Grinder was paroled in 2019. The Parole Board imposed special conditions to last for five years, as well as longer-lasting standard conditions. The Court of Appeal was told yesterday that an earlier release in 2011 was short-lived when he breached a condition.
The 2019 release came with conditions that included wearing an electronic anklet to monitor his whereabouts, and that he was not near anywhere children would likely be such as parks, schools, libraries and pools.
Later Grinder asked for those conditions to be dropped. His reasons included the bulky GPS ankle monitoring device was hard to fit inside his work boots, and he was concerned at ‘‘being outed’ if seen wearing the device.
A doctor suggested electronic monitoring might do little to lessen the risk Grinder posed and might hinder his pro-social opportunities. The board refused to drop the conditions. The board’s convener confirmed the decision.
Grinder then asked a High Court judge to review the refusal to drop those conditions. In a decision issued in November Justice Cheryl Gwyn decided the board had not applied the proper tests to the issues.
She said the board should reconsider its decision, directing it to assess if the conditions were a reasonable, necessary, and proportionate means of ensuring Grinder did not present an undue risk to the safety of the community. It also had to use up-todate information to assess future risk of offending and the seriousness and nature of any likely offending.
The board reconsidered Grinder’s case in January applying those directions and dropped the electronic monitoring, but the condition about not being near places where children might be remained until March 2024.
But the Attorney-General and the board appealed against the High Court judge’s decision. The Attorney-General’s lawyer, Charlotte Griffin, said the High Court appeared to require each condition be necessary, proportionate and reasonable to avoid an undue risk to the safety of the community.
In the past the board looked more holistically at whether a set of conditions together reduced risks, including those thought less than undue. One of the three judges hearing the appeal, Justice Jill Mallon, said one of the problems might be that even a low risk might still be undue.