High Court Justice Jillian Mallon last week ordered New Zealand’s longest serving prisoner Alfred Vincent released. Mr Vincent has been in prison more than 52 years and is currently held in a segregated wing at Rimutaka Prison.
The 35-page judgment gives the Crown three months to find suitable housing for the 83 year-old Vincent who suffers from dementia and other ailments and has no known surviving family. The release is in response to a combined Habeas Corpus and judicial review application, and an extensive 45-page submission.
Vincent was sentenced to preventive detention on seven counts of sexual assault against a minor in 1968 for groping preteen boys.
He first became eligible for parole 45 years ago. This past August Vincent had his most recent appeal for compassionate release turned down. Parole Board Chair-person Ron Young expressed concerned no plan for secure care was put forth for the octogenarian after concluding the compassionate ground for his release had not established Vincent was close to dying and no longer a threat to society. Prior to this the Parole Board concluded it would be “inhumane” to parole him because he was unable to function properly in society after such a lengthy incarceration.
In 2016, the Privy Council refused to hear appeal on the cursory view, “there is no risk that a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred in the case”.
Mallon J has now granted relief by judicial review against the Parole Board but, by consent, put aside consideration of the Habeas Corpus application without prejudice.
The order for Vincent’s release is the culmination of a protracted effort over many years by Human rights lawyer Dr Tony Ellis who has argued Vincent’s natural life sentence is a New Zealand first and disproportionate to the level of offending and risk posed by release.
Recently Dr Ellis had expressed concern about continuing, citing an inability to obtain instructions from his client due to Vincent’s declining health.
Ellis said he was obviously satisfied with the verdict but wished Habeas Corpus law could have been addressed in the context of when a lawful imprisonment order becomes arbitrary and the consequent detention unlawful.
