By C1 Staff
NEW ZEALAND — A probation officer is suing his superiors after they allegedly removed safety concerns about an inmate up for parole from his report.
The New Zealand Herald reports that Probation Officer Stanley Gilmour asserts that his superiors removed key information from his report concerning Rere Topou Pumipi, who was serving time for a vicious attack with a hammer on a man in 2012.
Gilmour said that the report that was considered by the Parole Board was “unlawfully and substantially altered.”
The Parole Board considered Gilmour’s report during Pumipi’s first parole hearing in January 2013.
Pumipi is currently wanted for absconding from the address where the Parole Board ordered he live. He was released from Ngawha Prison near Kaikohe after his second appearance before the board last July, after having served just a third of his three year and nine month sentence.
Gilmour said passages removed included his concerns that Pumipi had not addressed his anger, drug and alcohol problems.
Pumipi was released on his second appearance after he had done an alcohol treatment course and had been seen by a psychologist, who rated him a “moderate risk of future violence.”
Gilmour said he felt his complaints “were not receiving appropriate attention,” according to his barrister, Warren Templeton. “A key part of Mr. Gilmour’s concern was his view that he could be held responsible concerning the risks the prisoner posed to the public when these were removed without his knowledge or consent.”
He is seeking a declaratory judgement that alterations and deletions were unlawful and breached the obligations of probation officers set out in the Corrections Act 2008 and Parole Act 2002, and that allowing the reduced report to go to the board under his name was illegal.
Probation officers are required by law to provide “all information” that a court or Parole Board may need and must treat the maintenance of public safety as their “paramount consideration.”
Assistant regional commissioner Alastair Riach said that parole assessment reports are submitted to the Parole board by the DOC with input from a number of staff, and that the reports are subject to review and moderation as part of the DOC’s normal quality assurance processes.
A spokesperson for the board said they were not aware of the allegations and had no comment.