An ex-partner of convicted killer Joseph Brider, who suffered serious abuse at his hand, feels guilt-ridden he went on to kill Juliana Herrera. Video / Mike Scott
Police visited a woman linked to paroled rapist Joseph Brider but didn’t notify his neighbour.
Brider murdered Juliana Bonilla Herrera 72 days after his release, following a brutal attack.
Coroner Alexandra Cunninghame’s inquest examines Brider’s parole, housing and monitoring before the murder.
Police visited a woman who had been seeing recently paroled rapist Joseph Brider to “advise her of his history and assess her safety”.
But his neighbour Juliana Bonilla Herrera – separated from the high-risk offender by just a wall – was never notified of his presence or any danger to her safety.
Coroner Alexandra Cunninghame has today started hearing evidence about Herrera’s “horrendous” death.
She will hear from 20 witnesses about the lead-up to Brider’s fatal offending, why and how he was released on parole and how he was housed and monitored in that 72 days that followed.
Herrera, 37, was found dead in her Addington home in January 2022.
She had been murdered after a prolonged physical and sexual attack by her neighbour, Brider.
Brider was a convicted rapist who had been granted parole after previously being refused five times.
Both the Parole Board and Corrections have reviewed how Brider was managed.
Today, the inquest before Coroner Alexandra Cuninghame began in Christchurch District Court.
Coroner Cunninghame opened the inquest by speaking briefly about Herrera’s murder, which she described as “horrendous”.
She reminded the court that at Brider’s sentencing, Justice Jonathan Eaton described the offending as “brutal, callous and depraved”.
Juliana Herrera was killed in January 2022 in her Christchurch home. Photo / Supplied
She acknowledged Herrera’s family and friends, particularly her sister Saray Bonilla, who is attending the inquest by audiovisual link from her home in the US.
“I want to assure you that I will keep Juliana in my mind as we proceed through the evidence,” she said.
“Juliana was a vibrant, adventurous and interesting person, and she deserves to be remembered in so many more ways than the terrible way in which she died.”
A number of people who will be called to give evidence at the inquest have been granted interim name suppression.
She explained that soon after Brider moved in next to Herrera in November 2021, she became concerned about him.
“He behaved in a manner that troubled her,” Jordan said.
“She told her former partner that she did not like him. She told someone else she felt threatened by him. And she told another person that he gave her a bad feeling and that she felt like she was being watched.”
Brider a risk to “attractive” women
Jordan revealed that a probation officer visited Brider at his unit soon after his release.
“Brider was asked about any interactions he had had with his neighbours. In response, he said they were all elderly people,” she said.
“The probation officer did not see any of the neighbours during this visit, but noted that ‘any attractive female moving into the neighbouring flats or next door, it would be seen as a potential risk’ due to Mr Brider’s index offending.”
A condition of Brider’s release was to let his probation officer know if he entered a relationship with a woman.
“They were aware of the need for a psychologist to see him if he entered a relationship,” Jordan said.
“The clinical psychologist told the probation officer to just let me know if he starts a relationship.”
Before Christmas 2021, Brider told the probation officer he had been “speaking to a woman and requested to stay overnight at her house at Christmas”.
That request was declined.
Joseph James Brider was known to police before he was arrested for the murder of Juliana Herrera. Photo / Supplied
“The probation officer obtained the woman’s details and passed them to police who visited her on the 21st of December to advise her of Mr Brider’s history and assess her safety,” Jordan said.
“Brider continued to inform probation officers about his relationship with this woman and disclosed sexual activity, but said they were only friends.
“The woman has stated that they were only ever friends and nothing sexual ever occurred.
“Despite disclosing a relationship with the woman to his probation officer, Mr Brider was not referred to a psychologist. The probation officer did not meet the woman and wanted to get more information and liaise with the psychologist first.”
Rapist’s curfew not registered
Jordan said another condition Brider was subject to was a curfew and electronic monitoring.
He was not allowed to be away from his property at night. He breached that when he killed Herrera.
“The probation officer carried out daily checks on Mr Brider’s movements,” Jordan said.
“She also checked his curfew period time frame of 9pm to 6am and found that he had never left his unit during his curfew.
“However, following Juliana’s death, the probation officer learned that Mr Brider’s curfew had not been entered in the system since his release, despite her request in early November.”
Counsel assisting the coroner Rebekah Jordan looks on during the coroner's inquest looking into the oversights before the murder of Juliana Bonilla Herrera. Photo / Pool
Jordan said the purpose of the inquest was to attempt to answer a number of specific questions, including:
What decisions were made in Brider’s pre-release period and during the parole decision-making period that informed decisions made in the post-release period?
Were there any systemic issues, and could any improvements be made?
What information was provided to the Parole Board in relation to the release, and why was Brider released with conditions when he could have remained in prison until the end of his sentence?
The effectiveness of release conditions made by the parole boards, particularly given that Brider was assessed as being at high risk of reoffending.
What criteria were applied in determining where Brider would live, and how was the decision about this accommodation made?
What assessments, meeting, or considerations were made by Corrections and the accommodation provider for this placement at the address and what other options were available to Corrections and the provider.
Did the decision take into account the close proximity of neighbours?
After Brider was released, how was the risk managed, and how was work allocated with the vocational staff and case managers who dealt with Brider?
What were their case loads like, and did they affect the level of monitoring or engagement?
What was the communication between the accommodation provider and the Department of Corrections?
What steps were taken to ensure risks were being minimised?
How was the requirement for Brider to disclose new relationships with women monitored and was that requirement to self-report misplaced given that it left unknowing women exposed to undue risk?
Is there more advanced technology available for electronic monitoring and should it be utilised when monitoring people at high risk of reoffending?
Why was there no urgent response when Brider left his property on the night of the murder?
Should the community have been informed of his presence in defending?
What comments or recommendations should be made in relation to any of these issues?
Prison case manager “raised concerns” about release
The first witness called was Brider’s case manager at Christchurch Men’s Prison.
She said Brider had started his sentence in a North Island prison but transferred to Christchurch in early 2020 so he could complete an adult sex offender treatment programme.
When it came time to think about his release, Brider agreed that he should be referred to the Salisbury Street Foundation for consideration.
Brider wanted the “support and structure” that the residential programme would provide him with on his release.
Salisbury Street could not guarantee a bed would be available for Brider at the time of his release.
Pathway confirmed they could offer Brider accommodation for three months, during which time he would be “supported in finding long-term stable accommodation of his own by the community social work team”.
His case manager told the coroner she worried about Brider living in the community without the 24/7 support the foundation offered.
“I raised concerns bout Brider’s release on parole conditions over the Christmas and New Year period… and the lack of professional support readily accessible (at Pathway),” said the case manager.
Brider’s “distorted” view of women
Jordan revealed comments made about Brider in a report by a psychiatrist before he was released.
They said Brider had “developed a view of women as objects to satisfy his sexual needs rather than having equal rights and status”.
Further, he was “at risk of further sexual intrapersonal violence and sexual offending” because of “a lack of insight” into his previous offending.
He was described as self-entitled with a “distorted belief and attitude regarding women and healthy relationships”.
“He has a limited capacity to solve problems and regulate emotions... a cycle of problems,” said the psychologist.
Jordan also told the court that after Brider had completed an adult sex offenders treatment course, he told a psychologist he had “ongoing physiological arousal to thoughts of violence”.
Anna Leask is a senior journalist who covers national crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2008 and has worked as a journalist for 19 years with a particular focus on family and gender-based violence, child abuse, sexual violence, homicides, mental health and youth crime. She writes, hosts and produces the award-winning podcast A Moment In Crime, released monthly on nzherald.co.nz
