B&B bender on home D
Cameras showed an offender’s partying but police and Corrections said they couldn’t do anything – so the chaos continued. George Block reports.
Nathan Lewis tried to do the right thing by giving a convicted criminal a second chance, letting him serve home detention at the Auckland bed-and-breakfast he runs with his partner.
But when Lewis and his partner, Timothy Swart, went away on holiday, the offender invited friends over and embarked on a three-day bender.
Corrections won’t apologise to Lewis for the incident and said there was no evidence of a breach.
The offender, whom the Sunday Star-Times has chosen not to name, said he was allowed friends over as part of his conditions and denied doing any damage to the home.
Lewis and Swart had recently installed cameras throughout the Blockhouse Bay property. The footage beams back to his smartphone.
While on holiday, Lewis watched with horror as the criminal invited friends around.
The footage, seen by the StarTimes, shows the partying by the offender and his friends.
Lewis rang Corrections on the Saturday night of Queen’s Birthday Weekend to advise them of their guest’s antics, asking them to remove him.
He said he had a verbal agreement with a Corrections staff member that the offender would be removed within 24 hours of any breach.
Police visited the home the following day but told Corrections they could find no evidence of a breach.
Footage shows the festivities continuing, and it was not until Tuesday that the man, 21, was relocated to another home detention address. He faced no further action for his activities.
The saga began when Lewis responded to a Facebook advertisement where the man was asking for a place to stay to serve his home detention sentence.
He had been convicted on drug supply charges and a charge relating to making an intimate visual recording.
Lewis said he offered the man accommodation to give him a second chance.
‘‘Initially it was great, there were no issues.’’
That all changed when he and Swart went to Christchurch.
They had installed cameras throughout the house, and outside the property, and had let the offender know about the extensive CCTV system.
While out with friends on the Saturday night, Lewis started getting phone notifications from the system, so he logged in and fired up the live view.
‘‘That was when we witnessed a party starting to happen.’’
About 15 people arrived through the night.
He called both Corrections and police about 7pm and demanded they do something about the situation, he said.
‘‘They advised us he was going to be taken away that night, which he wasn’t.’’
Police visited the property on the Sunday morning but told Corrections they could find no evidence of a breach, and left.
‘‘They couldn’t arise him from his little bit of sleep that he had, then they proceeded to say they couldn’t do anything anyway, and left the property.’’
The revelry continued. ‘‘Monday, he was still on a bender, he had other friends over on the Monday, so they basically started to build up again, and then it wasn’t until the Tuesday when he went into Corrections, and they advised him that he couldn’t come back.’’
Lewis wants an apology and some compensation, given the cleaning that had to be undertaken after smoked inside.
The man is now finishing his home detention sentence in Waikato.
He told the Star-Times there was no damage to the house.
The man also said he was allowed friends over as part of his home detention conditions. He appeared to be in the dark about why Lewis took against him. ‘‘We had no beef.’’ Corrections northern operations director Julie Harrison said the couple entered into a ‘‘private arrangement’’ with the offender and a probation officer had assessed the property.
There was no written requirement for him to be removed within 24 hours on request ‘‘and this is not usual practice’’, but she did not rule out a verbal agreement.
A staff member at Corrections’ Electronic Monitoring Response team had asked Lewis and Swart if they would tell the offender he was being evicted, but they declined.
That staff member contacted police, Harrison said.
‘‘Police advised Corrections that there was no evidence the individual was in breach of any of his conditions and he could not be arrested.
‘‘Corrections cannot prevent someone from entering a property or use force to restrain them. This is a matter for police.’’
The offender was relocated when the Community Corrections offices opened on the Tuesday, she said.
Lewis said he had yet to receive word from Corrections regarding his complaint and is planning to take his case to the Corrections Inspectorate Office. the guests