Department of Corrections v Churchward HC CHCH CRI 2008-409-000196 [2009] NZHC 2336 (22 October 2009)

Last Updated: 13 January 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

_{CRI 2008-409-000196}

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Applicant

v

GEORGE CHARLES CHURCHWARD

Respondent

Hearing: 22 October 2009

Counsel: C Boshier for Applicant

P Allan for Respondent

Judgment: 22 October 2009

_{JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J}

[1] This is an application made by the Chief Executive of the Department of

Corrections for an extended supervision order against the respondent.

[2] The application was first heard by me on 3 March last. It was opposed at least in part and I began to take evidence from Mrs Bronwyn Rutherford, the principal Clinical Psychologist with the Kia Marama Special Treatment Unit. She was cross-examined by Mr Starling for the respondent as to the techniques she was using to assess Mr Churchward. I interrupted Mr Starling advising that if he wished to challenge the selection by Mrs Rutherford and application of the tests that she was _{using he would need to call an expert witness.}

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS V CHURCHWARD HC CHCH CRI 2008-409-000196 22 October 2009

[3] The hearing has been adjourned several times and a report has been obtained

for Mr Churchward from another clinical psychologist, Mr C Prince. I have not seen that report but very helpfully the two experts have conferred and Mrs Rutherford has prepared a table summarising the points of agreement and differences in expert opinions.

[4] Firstly, as a result of this summary of the opinions, I am quite satisfied that there ought to be an extended supervision order and in particular I am satisfied that the likely test has been met interpreting likely as meaning a real or substantial risk of

its occurrence. See: Curran v Parole Board HC CHCH CRI 2003-409-110

5 February 2004, Panckhurst J; and Belcher v Chief Executive of the Department of

Corrections [2007] 1 NZLR 507.

[5] The only issue is the term and that, I am reminded by Ms Boshier from the notes on her file, was I think going to be the issue back on 3 March.

[6] Mrs Rutherford has reported in her table that Mr Prince assesses Mr Churchward as a moderate risk and it would appear that as a result of his opinion and after discussion Mrs Rutherford has readjusted her assessment from high risk to medium high. In Mrs Rutherford’s very helpful summary of the points of difference Mr Prince is placing more weight on the effects of aging both generally and particularly in the case of Mr Churchward, who is now over 60.

[7] It seems to me that if I take into account the ability to make successive applications for extended supervision orders, and in particular s 107(I)(6), that the appropriate outcome here is to make an extended supervision order for five years and the Department of Corrections can review the position in five years’ time to decide whether or not to seek a further extension.

[8] I have put that view to counsel. Both of them accept that is the appropriate outcome based on the expert evidence now before the Court.

[9] For this reason I make an extended supervision order for a term of five years. This order commences from today, as a consequence of which this ends the bail period and the conditions that go with that.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch, for Applicant

M Starling, Christchurch, for Respondent (Counsel: P N Allan)