Handling of RSA killer's parole 'outrageous'

The court ruled this week that Susan Couch could make a case in the High Court for exemplary damages for negligence over the Panmure RSA attack. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Susan Couch's case against the Corrections Department will allege the mishandling of William Bell's parole was "flagrant", including that Bell reported for meetings with his supervisor but was never properly attended to.

The Supreme Court yesterday released to the Herald Ms Couch's statement of claim, which provides the basis of the case she will make against the department.

The court ruled this week that Ms Couch could make a case in the High Court at Auckland for exemplary damages for negligence over the Panmure RSA attack in 2001 when Bell, high on P, killed three people.

Ms Couch claims Corrections was negligent in its handling of Bell's parole and is seeking exemplary damages of $500,000.

The then part-time RSA worker suffered breaks to both arms and her cheekbone, as well as brain damage and partial paralysis.

A spokesman for the department said the charges would be defended, and declined to comment further because the matter was before the court.

The statement of claim alleges the department's mishandling of Bell's parole was "outrageous".

In the period from Bell's release until the murders, he reported to his supervising officer 14 times "but did not receive any or any adequate supervision or instruction from the supervising officer or any other officer".

This included one month when Bell did not report at all because his supervisor was unavailable, the claim states.

It also alleges:

* Bell was not made to do an alcohol and drug assessment, made to see a psychologist, or assessed for the rehabilitation programme Straight Thinking, despite these being conditions for his release.

* He moved out of his accommodation within two weeks and Corrections never checked if his new place was suitable, or if he was involved with alcohol or drugs.

* Bell's supervising officer, who has name suppression, had only 10 months' experience in the role.

* Bell had a high risk of reoffending, but was not recalled to prison after he was convicted of assault four weeks before the killings at the RSA.

The statement said Bell had told department staff: "I would drink until I was drunk" and "go out and look for places to rob and get more money and more alcohol".

* When Bell picked up part-time work at the RSA, his supervisor failed to ensure the safety or even warn the RSA staff, who were at "significantly greater risk".

"The conduct of the defendant and the supervising officer was outrageous, and so flagrantly a departure from the precepts of prudence or standards of care of a probation officer supervising a person whilst on parole."

It is understood an updated statement of claim is being drafted for the new court case, which is not expected for another 18 months to three years.

Former Victoria University law lecturer John Miller said the case was not an easy one.

The hard part would be trying to prove that Bell's probation officer - ultimately the department - placed Bell at the RSA, knowing full well that he was highly likely to reoffend.

"You've got to show that the department subjectively thought about this ... saw that risk and decided to go ahead with it, when reasonable people wouldn't."