Probation service 'turned a blind eye' to RSA killer

The probation service was accused yesterday of "literally doing nothing" to ensure that RSA triple killer William Bell complied with his parole conditions.

In the High Court at Auckland, Tai Hobson, the husband of slain RSA worker Mary Hobson, is seeking $500,000 in exemplary damages from the Corrections Department and $50,000 in general damages.

Mr Hobson, represented by Brian Henry, Deirdre Watson and David Garret, is claiming negligence, breach of statutory duty and malfeasance in public office.

The Crown, represented by John Pike and Fiona Guy, are asking Justice Paul Heath to strike the matter out, though it was a case that brought them "no joy".

Mr Hobson says that staff at the Mangere office breached a duty of care by failing to ensure that Bell met his parole conditions after being released from a five-year sentence for aggravated robbery.

He says that they failed to ensure that Bell attended psychiatric, drug and alcohol programmes, failed to supervise him properly, failed to ensure that he was living in suitable accommodation, failed to make work provisions and that they permitted him to start a liquor licensing course.

In his opening address, Mr Henry said that the service either knew or should have known that Bell had been placed at the RSA as part of his training after it learned that he was doing the course.

He said that Bell had a propensity for violent crime and it was foreseeable that he would rob a bank, bar or hotel and people would get hurt, if he were not properly supervised.

But the department failed to warn anyone at the RSA that there was a violent offender in their midst.

While on parole, Bell assaulted a woman, but Mr Henry said that no steps were taken to make sure he complied with his parole.

Mr Henry said this conduct was a "flagrant" departure from the standards of a probation officer supervising a person on parole and punitive damages were appropriate.

The statement of claim maintains that staff failed to visit the address where Bell was supposed to live and failed to act appropriately when they learned of his unauthorised change of address.

There was a breach of policy by allowing him fortnightly reports and allowing him not to report for more than four weeks.

Mr Henry said that inadequacies in the Mangere centre were known about by area and regional managers but no effective steps were taken to remedy the shortcomings.

The department had done "absolutely nothing" to ensure that Bell complied with his parole conditions and once staff were aware that he was on a liquor licensing course, made no effort to warn those he came into contact with.

With 102 previous convictions, Bell knew he could never enter the licensed trade.

"He was casing the joint because he had a drug addiction. He needed money to feed his addiction.

"He returned to get money the only way he knew how - armed and ready to kill people he knew could identify him if left alive."

When the probation service heard he was doing a liquor licensing course, that should have "sounded immediate alarm bells".

"Instead, they turned a blind eye. The unsuspecting staff at the Panmure RSA befriended him, believing him to be a young man of acceptable background to work within the industry, not a young thug with a propensity for aggravated robbery."

The civil servants had been "grossly negligent" in their supervision of Bell and "recklessly indifferent" to the consequences, Mr Henry said.

Mr Pike said the department had accepted that there were systemic failures and candidly acknowledged that mistakes were made in handling Bell's parole.

However, it was not foreseeable that Bell would commit crimes with such awful consequences.

His case was different from others quoted in court where there was a modus operandi or predictability which was not present here.

Everyone now knew how violent Bell was, but caution was needed.

The sort of violence Bell previously portrayed was not uncommon among offenders on parole.

It was not predictable that he would commit crimes "of the gravest violence imaginable".

Mr Pike maintained that no duty of care was owed to the plaintiff in the supervision of a parolee.

It could never be established that a breach of any or all of the duties particularised by the plaintiff caused the death of Mary Hobson.

Mr Pike said that the breach of parole conditions were not before the court when Bell was bailed on the male assaults female charge.

But they were not particularly serious and could not be said to be of such a nature that it would be an abuse of office not to seek Bell's recall to prison.

The hearing continues today.