Child rapist paroled despite 'real concerns'

File photo

A former Dunedin church bellringer convicted of raping a child over a three-year period has been released from prison, despite the parole board having "real concerns'' about his unconvincing lack of recall of details of his offending, and the address to which he has been paroled.

David Hockley, now 71, was released from prison earlier this year after serving just under half of a six-year, four-month sentence for rape, indecent assaults and possessing objectionable pornographic material.

Hockley, a plumber who was also Master of the Bells at First Church, was jailed in September 2008 after admitting he sexually assaulted the girl for three years, starting in 1985 when he was 44 and she was 12.

Among other things, Hockley molested the girl in the church attic when he took her there for bell-ringing lessons, and after he forced her to watch bestiality pornography.

The girl told her mother in 1988, but it was not until 2008, after years of counselling and family support, that she was in a position to make a complaint to the police.

In its report, the parole board said it had some "real concerns'' about Hockley's ability to discuss and recall the situation that gave rise to his convictions.

"Mr Hockley, despite saying that he has memory difficulties, was not overly convincing in discussing what he believed to be the situation about his offending at the time it occurred.''

However, the board discussed his situation and whether, at 71, he presented an undue risk to the community for further offending of this kind.

It concluded that his health issues _ he suffered a stroke about the time the allegations came to light and has a heart condition that has required surgery - made him "very much'' a different man from the person that was offending in the mid-1980s.

The board also expressed some concerns about the address Hockley was to be released to.

On the face of it it appeared suitable, but it was questionable whether or not the woman hosting him had a sufficient understanding of the offending that took place, panel convener Judge D Saunders said.

There were hopes she could be the approved person to be present if Hockley were to find himself in a situation where there were people aged 16 and under in the house.

Although that was a matter for a probation officer to consider in due course, the board did have some concerns about her being the approved person until she had a much fuller understanding of the nature of Hockley's offending and the risks attendant upon that, he said.

When all matters were taken into account, the board was of the view that given his age and the circumstances in which he was being released, that he would not be an undue risk to the safety of the public in general, as long as he complied with the conditions of his release.

The conditions are that he must live at the approved address and not move without written approval of his probation officer; that he undertake an assessment for counselling and do further work with a psychologist if directed to; have no contact with the victim of the offending without prior written approval of the probation officer; and not associate or otherwise have contact with any person 16 or younger unless another approved adult aged over 18 is present.

The report does not identify the town to which Hockley has been released.