RSA killing compo bid battles on

By ANNE BESTON


The husband of slain RSA worker Mary Hobson will take his case to the Court of Appeal after two of three grounds under which he wants to sue the Corrections Department were struck out by the High Court.

Tai Hobson is claiming $550,000 in damages for negligence, breach of statutory duty and misfeasance (wrongful exercise of lawful duty) by the probation service, after parolee William Bell murdered three people during a robbery of the Mt Wellington RSA in December 2001.

But in a High Court decision released yesterday, Justice Paul Heath ruled that Mr Hobson could not bring a case on the first two grounds, although there could be a claim for misfeasance.

Mr Hobson's lawyer, Brian Henry, said his client was "philosophical" about the decision.

"He accepts this was always going to be a long battle," but had instructed Mr Henry to prepare an appeal.

Mr Henry said there were "huge ramifications" for the Crown if Mr Hobson's case succeeded and set a precedent.

In order for the misfeasance claim to succeed, Mr Hobson would have to prove that his wife's murder was partly caused by a deliberate decision or act by an official within the probation service.

In his ruling, Justice Heath acknowledged the novel nature of the case.

He said a case for negligence could not be proved because its success depended on the probation officer recognising that Bell posed a particular threat to particular individuals. But Mr and Mrs Hobson were not known to Bell.

It would put too great an obligation on a probation officer if he or she was required in every case to consider how and to whom warnings about offenders should be given, and to be liable for damages if that assessment proved incorrect, Justice Heath said.

The power to compel someone like Bell to do as a probation officer directed was "necessarily limited", he ruled.

Mr Henry said Mr Hobson would probably challenge the entire ruling in the Appeal Court.

Bell was on parole after a five-year sentence for aggravated robbery when he committed the murders.

He previously worked at the RSA as part of a liquor licensing course but staff were not warned of his violent past.

Mr Henry argued during the High Court hearing that staff at the Mangere probation office failed to ensure Bell met his parole conditions, failed to ensure he attended psychiatric, drug and alcohol programmes and failed to make sure he met living and working stipulations of his parole.

Civil servants had been "grossly negligent" in their supervision of Bell and "recklessly indifferent" to the consequences.

The Crown said the department accepted there were systemic failures within the probation service and mistakes in the handling of Bell's parole, but it was not foreseeable that he would commit the murders.

The case

Tai Hobson, the husband of slain RSA worker Mary Hobson, is seeking $550,000 damages.

He claims that killer William Bell was not properly supervised while on parole following a five-year sentence for aggravated robbery, and that failure led to the killings.

The Crown argues that Bell posed no "clear and present danger".