Could this psychopathic killer have been stopped?
Joseph Brider’s sadistic murder of Juliana Bonilla Herrera in Christchurch last year was preventable. Who or what failed Herrera? Corrections is being accused of giving ‘‘wrong’’ information about Brider to the Parole Board. Martin van Beynen reports.
Released from jail on parole, psychopath Joseph Brider prepared to sadistically kill his neighbour. The people charged with managing his risk had no idea and on January 22, last year, Brider executed his depraved plan, murdering Juliana Herrera in her flat in an appalling attack.
A review of the Parole Board’s decision to release Brider says the move was reasonable given the information before it. The Department of Corrections also did a review, which found no failing or action by its staff caused Herrera’s death. But questions remain. Particularly around the suitability of Brider’s living situation and monitoring of his behaviour, including his computer usage.
Yesterday, the Parole Board accused Corrections of cancelling a preferred accommodation option for Brider.
Release pending
By July 2021, Brider had served most of the seven-year, nine-month jail term he received in 2014 for a prolonged and violent sexual attack on his partner.
By the time of his release, he had completed treatment programmes for alcohol and drug use and sexual offending against adults. In June 2021, he was transferred to a self-care unit at Christchurch Men’s Prison, so he could become accustomed to more independence prior to his release. He was regarded as well-behaved and a good worker. It was believed his main risk was violence towards men and to women with whom he was in a relationship.
The danger of him becoming fixated on or assaulting a woman he did not know appeared to be unexplored.
Brider was born in Auckland, and lived with his mother and stepfather. He claimed he was abused as a child. By age 13, he was using drugs and alcohol. At 16 he left school to work on farms. His offending soon escalated and he was drawn to the Mongrel Mob gang, where he felt accepted. Later reports described his lack of empathy, poor impulse control and tendency to exert control through violence.
Plans in place
The first plan was for Brider to be released to the Salisbury Street Foundation, a residential community centre in Christchurch set up to help parolees reintegrate under close supervision. According to Corrections, Salisbury Street could not confirm the availability of a bed, so it turned to another provider, which in this article will be referred to as Grove House since its name has been suppressed by the High Court.
Bed availability at Salisbury Street is disputed. The Parole Board has claimed it would have released Brider to Salisbury Street in June 2021 and the information it received from Corrections that no beds were available was wrong and a ‘‘serious failing’’. An inquiry has been launched.
Grove House is a charity that helps difficult offenders before and after their release. It provided the accommodation where Brider lived. The flat was in a block of four red-brick units in Grove Rd, Addington, a leafy street with a church square at its end. Herrera was accustomed to released offenders using the flat and had not had any trouble with them in the past.
Grove House staff worked with Brider before his release. Brider would have completed his jail sentence in February 2022 and his parole period would have ended in August 2022. After that he could go where he pleased.
Corrections could have applied to the court for an extended supervision order for Brider, which would have allowed agencies to monitor him for 10 years after release in much the same way as stipulated by his parole conditions.
Obtaining the order does not appear to have been seriously considered and may not have made a difference to what occurred 72 days after Brider’s release.
The Parole Board met on October 21 and decided to release Brider on November 10 with 14 conditions. They did not include restrictions on access to the internet because his previous crimes had not involved computer use.
Brider viewed porn sites as he prepared to attack Herrera.
Accommodation confirmed
By October, Grove House confirmed it would accommodate Brider at the Addington flat. This happened before a probation officer was appointed on October 27. The officer knew about the flat because other offenders had been housed there. Corrections says it completed a suitability assessment which flagged the lack of 24/7 oversight.
It therefore recommended electronic monitoring of Brider.
According to the review by Corrections, the probation officer had six years of experience including a ‘‘good level’’ of managing parole cases with electronic monitoring requirements.
She was regarded as having sufficient experience to manage higher risk cases and adult sexual offending.
She appeared to have a high workload. In November 2021 she worked 63 hours more than the recommended monthly allocation of 111 hours. That trend continued into January.
In its review, Corrections said the probation officer sent a request for Brider to be fitted with a monitoring device at Christchurch Men’s Prison on the morning of his release.
The plan was to ensure Brider did not leave Christchurch and complied with his 10pm-6am curfew. However, when the monitoring was set up, the probation officer forgot to ask for the curfew period to be loaded. The failure was also missed by the GPS immediate response team.
This meant Brider could have left his flat during the curfew without triggering an alert. However any breaches could have been detected by checking the GPS monitoring information. This later showed he complied with the curfew until January 22.
Induction
The probation officer inducted Brider into his parole on the day of his release.
Covid-19 restrictions meant she had to do the induction over the phone. Brider did not meet his probation officer face-to-face until November 25. Normal practice was a home visit within five days of release but the officer’s district manager had stopped home visits due to Covid-19 concerns. The probation officer did no more home visits but saw Brider face-toface 10 times before the murder.
As Brider settled in, he appeared to be focused on finding work and was supported by Grove House staff.
Unbeknown to probation, he tried searching Herrera’s name online a week after arriving in Grove Rd and watched her as she went to and from work.
Herrera was immediately uneasy about him.
Brider was required to report to Ensors Rd probation every week although he was given two exemptions prior to Christmas.
This was not best practice but the probation officer was speaking to Brider almost daily on the phone and had assurance from Grove House and GPS monitoring that he was behaving himself. The officer also ensured police were aware of Brider’s release.
She regularly assessed Brider’s risk using a checklist called dynamic risk assessment for offender re-entry. This showed he continued to be high risk and some factors, mainly his attitude to violence in the context of confrontation with other males, worsened slightly.
On December 15, Brider started work as a labourer and was allowed to vary his curfew to leave his flat at 5.30am for work. Near Christmas, Brider had been in contact with a woman who apparently did not know his background. He asked for permission to stay with her on Christmas Day but was declined.
The probation officer alerted police to the contact and police spoke to the woman to provide more information about him. No immediate concerns arose.
On December 20, Brider returned a negative test for alcohol and drugs, although alcohol was found in his fridge by police after the murder. Four days later he searched Herrera’s name on Google and Facebook.
No signs attack imminent
Over the next month, Brider’s probation officer and other staff saw nothing to suggest serious offending was imminent.
But Brider was making preparations to murder Herrera. On December 8, he bought two rolls of distinctive masking tape. On January 18, he bought a box of condoms and a pair of latex gardening gloves. In the next few days he went on Google twice to search Herrera’s name.
When Herrera arrived home about 10pm on January 21, Brider was sitting on his porch watching her.
The Parole Board has claimed the information it received from Corrections that no beds were available at Salisbury Street Foundation was wrong and a ‘‘serious failing’’.
The tragic reality
It is clear offenders like Brider will never be risk-free on release. Their true intentions and state of mind can only be detected retrospectively. Assessment of risk is never perfect. Finite sentences come to an end and offenders are entitled to leave jail behind. No-one can predict their future actions.
This is the other great tragedy of Herrera’s death – that even if everyone does their job, people like Brider return to the community and find ways to offend again. In this case, Herrera paid the terrible price of having a justice system that balances the safety of the public with the interests of offenders.
She will never be forgotten. But cases like hers will undoubtedly occur again.