Juliana had a right to know the risk
Some years ago a new bloke moved in next door. He was a handy chap and keen to help his neighbours.
He fixed a few things about our place, then, when we were converting our garage into a room, swapped some labour for tools and a bit of cash.
He was nice enough to the kids, liked our dogs, and neither he nor anyone else ever divulged he was on life parole for killing six people.
Would we have liked to have known of his crime before he was invited into our home? Absolutely.
Did we have a right to be told about it? Absolutely not.
The reviews following the death of Juliana Bonilla Herrera have found no failings from either the Parole Board, which released her murderer, nor the Department of Corrections, which managed him in the weeks before he killed her.
Despite that, the board has accused Corrections of giving it the wrong information about the murderer’s accommodation after his release.
Now there’s to be a review, another one, into that claim.
But the report that’s perhaps most meaningful to the vast majority of New Zealanders is still to come.
By March 31, about 14 months after Juliana’s killing, a review into Corrections’ existing notification policy is expected to be completed.
The current policy is largely focused on community notification for child sex offenders, but also provides for people subject to extended supervision orders.
Other offences aren’t automatically excluded, although this depends on the nature of the crime.
This is the policy that meant Juliana never knew what the thing next door was on parole for, which, by the way, was rape, unlawful sexual connection, abduction for sex and injuring with intent to injure.
Before that 2014 attack on his partner, he’d amassed 27 convictions, including two for male assaults female, one of which involved hand pressure to the throat.
Again, Juliana, who lived alone, was never told any of this.
Victims’ advocate Ruth Money says that was a massive error by Corrections, and the public will only be safe when they have all the information and can take steps to protect themselves.
Members of Christchurch’s Latin community went even further in their criticism, saying that if Juliana had been notified she would not be dead.
‘‘The fact they didn’t notify her killed her.’’
Another fact is that, like it or not, most sentences – even life ones – come to an end and offenders have to be released. That process can never be riskfree; even when studiously assessed and monitored, some will always find ways to offend again.
All those years ago, the friendship with our neighbour ended after some dishonest behaviour on his part, long before I discovered his past. Even so, I understood our right to know wasn’t outweighed by his to live and rehabilitate anonymously.
That’s because his crime wasn’t sexually or gendermotivated, and his neighbours weren’t vulnerable people.
He was a bad person, certainly, but had served his time and had a right to leave prison behind. As far as I know he hasn’t reoffended.
While so far the reports following Juliana’s death insist there’s nothing other than her murderer to blame, the review into the notification policy must find otherwise.
The policy is either unfit for purpose, or was not properly applied in this case. Maybe, probably, both.
Our justice system is obliged to weigh the safety of the public with the rights of offenders; this time it got that wrong.
When a violent sex offender was moved in next door to a woman living alone, she should have been told. That was her right.