File alleges probation failings
Community Corrections allowed an offender to ignore his probation conditions and was then keen to hush it up when he was stabbed to death in his own kitchen.
The claim is made in a file containing alarming allegations by a probation officer working at Community Corrections’ Annex Rd office in Christchurch.
Other claims in the file seen by The Press are that an extended sentence offender (ESO) was able to visit his female probation officer’s home address 13 times in three months, without the officer realising, because probation did not check his GPS tracker device.
ESOs are regarded as having such a high risk of reoffending they need close supervision after completing their jail sentence.
Another allegation is that a senior manager failed to tell the probation officer handling a gang member’s intensive supervision that her stepdaughter was in a relationship with the gang member. The file has been seen by The Press and has been handed to the Public Service Commission by the officer’s MP Nicola Grigg.
The commission has asked Corrections head office, which has been aware of the alleged failures since last year, to investigate and report back.
Grigg said she was concerned not only by the allegations presented to her, but also by the difficulties the officer faced in escalating an inquiry.
‘‘I remain concerned that the public service system does not properly allow for anonymous complaints to be made, or impartial investigations to be carried out.’’
Among a raft of issues, the officer, a former police officer, claims he was targeted and bullied after he raised concerns about senior managers at what he regards as a dysfunctional office. The file gives the impression of a chaotic office with a high turnover, cronyism and senior managers socialising and covering for each other.
One of the issues the officer highlights is the case of Brendon Ross, whose file he received in March 2020. Ross had been sentenced to community supervision and had to report to the probation office weekly. Two days after the probation officer received the file, Ross was killed in Christchurch by two men who wanted to punish him for his behaviour towards a friend.
Ross’ file showed he had not been inducted and had not reported to probation. After three months a probation officer contacted him and was told he was scared to leave his house and had
too many problems to visit probation. Probation took no action to ensure Ross was safe or that he complied with probation, it is alleged in the file.
‘‘My manager told me not to mention his murder or death or make any reference of the death or nature of his death on his file. I was so suspicious this matter would be covered up I kept the offender’s hard copy file in my desk for all of 2021. Not once did anyone ask for it,’’ the officer says in the file.
‘‘In my view it was an entirely preventable murder . . . had he received oversight and intervention. No-one was held accountable for this appalling situation.’’
The file also shows that staff were told a female probation officer’s home had been visited 13 times in three months from June to August 2021 by an extended sentence offender because his tracker device, which should have been checked daily, had not been monitored properly.
The officer, who has worked at Community Probation at Annex Rd for about five years, says his concerns started in September 2019 when he was assigned a 32-year-old gang member (referred to as Mr A in the file) who was on intensive supervision. That required Mr A to report every week for the first three weeks and participate in various programmes.
‘‘The concern is there has been no compliance with policy and since the day of the meeting (August 2021) there has been total silence, no inquiry, no review into operational performance with other high-risk offenders, no staff welfare check.’’
The officer was ‘‘stunned’’, the file says, when a gang member he calls Mr A, was not charged after he tested positive for methamphetamine and cannabis in breach of his community sentence in December 2019. His previous violent offending was related to methamphetamine use.
In January 2020, the officer learnt that Mr A was in a relationship with a probation service manager’s stepdaughter. The stepdaughter accompanied Mr A to one of his meetings and divulged the connection. The senior manager was a close friend of the officer’s supervisor.
After he decided to drug test Mr A again, his supervisor put him on a tutoring programme ostensibly to help him handle deception and manipulation by Mr A.
‘‘. . . I was to report on each report in by the offender to my manager which completely baffled me as I was managing other very high risk offenders with no such oversight . . . Five months earlier I received a commendation from National Office for offender management of very high-risk offenders,’’ he says in the complaint.
‘‘With the benefit of hindsight I suspect the offender avoided prosecution due to the tacit interference in his offender management by senior staff.
‘‘I then realised my vocalised concerns about this offender had caused me to become a target.’’
The officer claims that concerns he raised were met by subtle penalties. For instance he was appointed to the Christchurch Probation gang committee in October 2020. He was removed three months later after he wanted explanations for why his personal phone number was given to a gang member without his permission.
In March 2020, Mr A was assigned to another probation officer, but the officer, after repeated attempts to have his concerns investigated, continued to be unhappy about how his complaint was handled.
In May 2021, he phoned the Corrections integrity unit wanting to make a protected disclosure but was told he had to name the managers he wanted to complain about. He refused until he had some guarantee he would not lose his job. No-one got back to him to take the matter further. He then complained to Ombudsman.
According to the file, the officer faced an employment investigation In April 2021 for accessing names he was not authorised to search. He was exonerated.
The investigation followed him raising concerns about a young offender who was raped over several weeks in prison. Another probation officer had warned Corrections this could happen if the young offender was housed with the eventual rapist in prison.
Corrections was asked to respond to each of the allegations and incidents but said it was constrained by the Employment Relations Act 2000, the Official Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 2020.
‘‘When staff raise concerns or complaints internally about the behaviour or actions of other staff, or where they raise an employment matter, we treat these seriously and take the appropriate action to investigate and resolve the matter as quickly as possible. However, some matters do take time to fully investigate and resolve,’’ a spokesperson said.
‘‘This may be due to a delay in our ability to access the required information, a lack of engagement with all persons involved, or ensuring we meet the requirements of the relevant employment or legal process. This may include referring information onto other parts of the department for investigation or, where necessary, to other agencies.’’