Joseph Brider was sentenced to preventive detention this week. Photo / John Kirk-Anderson/ Pool
Joseph Brider was sentenced to preventive detention this week. Photo / John Kirk-Anderson/ Pool
An independent Corrections review has dismissed the Parole Board’s allegations of a “serious failure” around the release of the man who murdered Juliana Bonilla Herrera in her Christchurch home just 72 days after getting out of prison.
Joseph James Brider was sentenced to life in prison and preventive detention last month for the murder of the Colombian native in her Christchurch flat - described by Justice Jonathan Eaton as brutal, cruel, callous, depraved and sadistic.
At sentencing, Brider was described as a psychopathic offender who lacked any remorse or empathy and was undoubtedly a significant and “very real” danger to women. Brider had been released on parole - after being refused five times - with strict conditions including GPS monitoring and a curfew.
He moved into a flat adjoining Herrera’s on Grove St, Addington, and within days became obsessed with her.
The Parole Board had refused to release Brider on multiple occasions and only agreed to do so - shortly before his sentence end date - so they could impose conditions and put monitoring in place.
That monitoring - including GPS tracking and a curfew - fell to Corrections once Brider was living outside the wire.
After last month’s sentencing Parole Board chairman Sir Ron Young released a statement highly critical of Corrections’ management of Brider.
His comments came after an independent report from Professor Devon Polaschek into the Parole Board’s decision in October 2021 to release Brider on parole.
Polaschek had concluded the Parole Board’s decision to release Brider was reasonable based on the information available to it.
Young said the board’s preferred address for Brider was the Salisbury Street Foundation. He said the address was “discussed extensively” at his parole hearing.
However, the board was unable to release Brider there because there was no room for him.
”I now believe the information provided to the Board by Corrections that there was no room available at the Salisbury Street Foundation for a release on parole was not correct.
“It is my understanding that after the June 2021 parole hearing, where it was clearly intended that Mr Brider would be released to the Salisbury Street Foundation, Corrections contacted the Foundation and cancelled the referral. This occurred in August of 2021.
”The Parole Board was not made aware of this significant change in the release plan by Corrections at any time before Mr Brider’s release on parole.”
Juliana Bonilla-Herrera was murdered by her neighbour, Joseph Brider while he was on parole for rape.
Young said the Salisbury Street Foundation had now told the Parole Board it had a bed available for Brider “if he had been released in June” and “would have still made a room available for him following the October parole hearing”.
”Given the Board’s clear commitment to releasing Mr Brider to the Salisbury Street Foundation, as shown in the Board’s hearing decision of June 2021, this was a very serious failure by Corrections to tell the Board of the cancellation,” Young blasted.
“It is the Parole Board and not Corrections that decides where an offender may be released to on parole. To do that effectively the board relies on accurate information from Corrections.
“Corrections had no authority from the board to withdraw the application to the Salisbury Street Foundation when it was aware that was the board’s preferred address and that a bed was available for Mr Brider.
“It is clear to me that Corrections’ failure to provide this vital information compromised the board’s decision-making.
”The Board would most definitely have released Mr Brider to the Salisbury Street Foundation if it had known the correct facts.”
Corrections launched an independent review into the claims.
That was released on Wednesday, undertaken by Victoria Heine KC.
Corrections chief executive Jeremy Lightfoot said he accepted the findings of the report - and its two recommendations.
“The review found that Corrections did not provide incorrect information to the Parole Board ahead of Mr Brider’s final parole hearing, and that Corrections was entitled to form the view, based on the information our staff had, that there was no guarantee of a bed being available for Mr Brider on his release date with (the Salisbury Street Foundation).
“I remain confident that my staff were focused on securing an appropriate placement for him in advance of his parole date and worked within available guidance to do so.”
Lightfoot said information provided by Corrections to the Parole Board for the October 2021 hearing outlined that it had pursued an alternative release address for Brider with another support service for a number of reasons.
“These included that there was no guaranteed bed at [Salisbury St], concerns around Mr Brider’s ability to engage with [its] long-term intensive reintegration programme due to the short period of time he would be on parole, and to continue his engagement with [another provider] in the community.
“However, the review also found that the Parole Board would have benefited from being explicitly advised that we had cancelled the referral to (SSF) due to the uncertainty around whether or not a bed would be available in time for release.
“I take this finding seriously and am fully committed to ensuring the Parole Board has all the information it needs to make an informed decision in cases involving high-risk offenders.”
Lightfoot said he and Young “agree that Corrections’ current guidance to our frontline staff could be clearer” in terms of what information is shared with the Parole Board in high-risk cases to “ensure different release proposals can be fully explored before deciding to grant someone parole”.
“The chair of the Parole Board and I have agreed to work together on strengthening our information-sharing processes.
“As part of this, we will be issuing updated guidance to frontline staff on what information to include in parole assessment reports. This will include guidance on when staff should include additional information about any changes to a release proposal that is different to the proposal put forward in a previous hearing.”
Lightfoot said he also accepted the review’s recommendation that where a referral to a provider has gone through Corrections’ internal panels, any proposals to withdraw such referrals “must go back through the same panel to ensure additional oversight into this decision-making”.
“The review also recommended working with our accommodation service providers to improve the processes for confirming whether or not a bed is available for people released from prison, and the timeframe for this confirmation,” he explained.
“I have accepted this recommendation we will be working with our providers on how we can achieve this.
“Once again, we must always learn from any case where a person has reoffended in the most horrific way.”
“And our thoughts remain with Juliana’s family and loved ones,” he said.
“Corrections manages the most complex, dangerous people in New Zealand and we must always learn from any case where a person has re-offended in the most horrific way.”
More from the review - the full details of Brider’s path to release and murder
Victoria Heine KC’s review, released to the Herald, had four objectives including identifying what information and/or advice was provided by Corrections to the Parole Board regarding accommodation for Brider, reviewing the basis for the information and/or advice referred to, recording the steps undertaken by Corrections in respect of that information and/or advice and work with the Chief Executive on any other related matters as agreed.
Heine looked at the intensive reintegration services, including Salisbury Street, and another organisation he had engaged with.
Salisbury Street offered 24/7 supervised accommodation with staff living on site.
Residents attend group reintegration activities as part of a programme.
It has both a “main house” with approximately 11 beds for those participating in the group service and separate flats for those on an individual programme - which lasts for a minimum of six months but can be longer than 12 months.
Usually, only offenders with high and complex needs are eligible for referral to an Intensive Reintegration Service (IRS).
Regular meetings are held – approximately fortnightly - between Corrections staff and Salisbury Street to discuss the status of the current referrals.
The report said there were “regular discussions” about Brider.
The place where Brider ended up living did not provide IRS – rather, he was provided support for daily living by staff who conducted regular visits.
On January 7, a referral for IRS to be provided by Salisbury Street was sent to the IRS Panel as “the support and structure that this residential option would provide him with on his initial release”.
Other options were under consideration if the referral was not successful.
The referral said Brider would “require a substantial amount of support on his release”.
The referral was approved by the IRS panel on January 21.
On February 17, Brider was approved by Salisbury St for assessment, and Corrections staff emailed them to request an idea of when the assessment could take place.
On March 4, 2021, Brider’s reintegration coordinator was advised by Salisbury Street that they would not be seeing Brider for his assessment at that time, and it was more likely to be nearer his appearance before the Parole Board in June.
Brider was advised to complete his Adult Sex Offenders Treatment (ASOTP) and focus on his reintegration, which would give Salisbury St more information. They would “then look to provide a possible bed date for the next NZPB hearing”.
The review said consideration continued to be given by Corrections as to whether an option of supported accommodation should be in the mix.
Internal Corrections emails recorded that on May 5, 2021 Salisbury St advised Brider’s referral had been accepted and proposed outings were to be scheduled to assess his suitability.
“Once these have been completed then the service will be able to provide confirmation that Mr Brider will then be offered a bed date,” one email stated.
The Parole Assessment Report at Brider’s June 2021 hearing said Brider had been working with a key member of staff around his release plan. It was anticipated that once Brider had completed his proposed outings a bed date “may become available to Corrections”.
The review says the lack of bed date was specifically raised by the Panel Convenor at the June 2021 hearing, both with Brider and Corrections.
The Board recorded that Salisbury St had a long waitlist, and it was unclear when bed would be available.
Parole was declined as without accommodation and other support available to him in the community through the provider his risk remained undue. He was rescheduled to appear again in October.
Brider confirmed in response to questioning from the panel convenor that he was still keen to wait for the date so as to be released to Salisbury St.
In an internal email sent the day after the June Parole Board hearing, Corrections staff record their frustrations at not having an update from Salisbury St of Brider’s likely bed date prior to the Parole Board hearing.
“We went again into a board hearing with a lack of information which is far from ideal”, the email said.
The review said it appeared that around this time Corrections staff became “increasingly concerned” about the need for an alternative accommodation option.
On June 22, a Corrections Officer in the self-care unit at Christchurch Men’s Prison emailed Brider’s case manager to advise that Brider wished to speak with them.
The email said:
“I took him to [Salisbury St] and [Salisbury St] stated that because his release date is 2 months into a 6-month course, he might be better to go through [another programme] and not [Salisbury St] so this is what he is wanting to discuss.”
An internal email on July 14 recorded a discussion between Corrections and Salisbury St regarding an update on Brider’s referral status.
The email said Salisbury St had offered Brider a bed placement when he last undertook an outing there however it was “subject to actual bed availability.” They would confirm a bed date closer to his hearing in October.
There was a suggestion, the review says, that a bed date would not be available to him before his February 2022 statutory release date.
Corrections staff expressed concern that “we do not have a replacement plan that would provide the treatment recommended structure that Salisbury St would provide on release”.
Corrections and Brider were advised that the other accommodation could provide accommodation and support for him in the community, with confirmation of actual availability to be advised in line with his next parole hearing.
Later that day an internal email from the same key staff member advised other Corrections staff that they were now moving forward with an alternative release plan, and asked what the process was for advising Salisbury Street.
The case manager recorded on 28 July 2021 that Brider’s reintegration pathway was formerly proposed to be Salisbury Street - but that this had had to be reconsidered given it was not able to provide a guarantee of a bed date for him in preparation for his next Parole Board appearance.
The case manager further recorded: “Notwithstanding this Salisbury Street have confirmed that the service will provide an update to the NZPB in preparation of his October board to confirm whether the service can offer him a bed date that remains subject to bed availability. However, given the uncertainty in consideration to his fast-approaching end date, an alternative accommodation proposal has been required to be canvassed.”
The case manager then referred to the possibility of the release proposal involving the other provider.
In August 2021 Brider’s case manager started compiling information to enable them to prepare him for his October parole hearing.
“They sought information on his reintegration plan, nature of the support to be provided, confirmation of bed date, and information from his psychologist as to what his risk might look like in the community in the absence of the intensive programme provided by (Salisbury Street),” said Heine.
At that time the other provider could not make a formal bed placement offer – however said a spot may become available by November.
The Salisbury Street team told Heine during an interview that they believed he was ”ambivalent” about coming to them and was “sending ambivalent messages”.
“They had concerns whether, if he were released to (them) he would in fact complete the programme past his statutory release date,” Heine said.
“And if he “played up” he would not be able to be recalled.
“Having said that, (Salisbury Street) confirmed to me that they had been expecting Mr Brider and as at the time of cancellation, would have had a bed available for him but they could not provide a bed date. As they put it ‘’Joseph Brider was on their radar”.”
Heine when the Parole Board saw Brider for the final time it was ”clear” that “for a period of several months, a degree of uncertainty” about his post-prison placement.
“There is some sense in which those involved were talking past one another,” she said.
“The Parole Board is concerned that incorrect information was provided by Corrections to the Parole Board regarding the availability of accommodation for Mr Brider at (Salisbury Street)on release.
“On the basis of the material available to me (which the Parole Board has not seen) I do not consider that the statements in the October PAR can fairly be said to be “incorrect”.”
Heine said what Corrections told the board was “a reasonable reflection of the position, noting the ambiguities”.
“The Parole Board had before it only two options, neither of which were optimal – to decline parole which would mean that Mr Brider would leave Christchurch Men’s’ Prison in February 2022 and would have limited opportunity for supervision prior to the end of his sentence; or to release Mr Brider on parole to the (other) accommodation service which... would mean he did not have the type of high-level oversight offered by (Salisbury Street).”
Heine said it was “critical” the Parole Board had all of the information it needed to make an informed decision on each case.
“In most cases the Parole Board will not benefit from a chapter and verse description of the history of the release plans which Corrections have considered and discarded,” she said.
“However, Mr Brider was in a different category to the majority of offenders.. (he) was identified as complex and high risk. He had high reintegration needs with limited support in the area. In recognition of those factors he had previously been referred to an IRS.
“He had a history of violence and sexual attack. IRS was recognised as an important part of managing any risk which Mr Brider posed.
“In those circumstances and similar cases, the Parole Board may be best assisted through a comparison of all available release options to enable it to consider the pros and cons of the potential outcomes. It would then be up to the Parole Board to determine what option it wished to pursue.
“I recommend that Corrections consider whether cancellation of an IRS referral should also be taken back to the IRS Panel, given the significant risk that such offenders are acknowledged to pose.
“I recommend that Corrections consider working with its providers to agree a clear process for confirmation of bed availability to services.
“Ideally a date would be provided at this time but if that is not possible then a date range should be provided.
“Those types of protocols would have provided more certainty to the release proposal and information available to the Board. However, I understand that they may be operationally challenging, but that is a matter for Corrections and its providers to consider further.
The Parole Board responds - decision-making “compromised”
In response to the independent review, Sir Ron said nothing in the review had changed his opinion that the information provided to the Parole Board at the October 2021 hearing was “inadequate and inaccurate”.
At the June 2021 parole hearing, there was common understanding between the board and Corrections that Brider would be released to the Salisbury Street Foundation
In August 2021, The Foundation advised Corrections that they would have a release date for Brider at the October parole hearing.
In August 2021, the department contacted the foundation and cancelled the referral
At the October 2021 hearing, the department advised the board that no room was available at the foundation and that therefore another accommodation provider was proposed
The board was not informed that the lack of accommodation at the foundation was the result of department cancelling the referral.
Sir Ron said that as a result, the Board’s decision-making was “compromised”.
”I am confident there was no intent to mislead the board, but through the omission of critical information that was the outcome,” he said.
“I therefore appreciate the acknowledgement by the (Lightfoot) that the Parole Board would have benefited from being explicitly advised about the cancellation of the referral to the foundation.
”The Parole Board relied on accurate information from Corrections to guide its decisions.
”The relationship between the two must therefore be one of absolute trust.”
Sir Ron said his priority now was to work with Lightfoot and his team “to ensure the board’s information needs and expectations are clearly understood”.
“Our thoughts are again today with the family and friends of Juliana Bonilla Herrera and I reiterate the board’s profound sympathy to them for the dreadful tragedy that occurred.””
The killing of Juliana Bonilla-Herrera: What Brider did
At an arraignment for Brider in September Crown Prosecutor Claire Boshier read the summary of facts to the court, outlining the horrific attack on Bonilla-Herrera.
She revealed that just a week after Brider was released from prison he searched “Colombia lady” on his phone.
He then bought two rolls of masking tape and searched again for Bonilla-Herrera online - putting her name into Facebook and Google. He searched again the day before the murder.
He bought a box of condoms and latex gardening gloves and on the night of the murder he searched a number of pornographic sites including men sneaking in on women sleeping and “familial relations videos”.
Bonilla-Herrera returned home from a night out with a friend, intending going to bed.
She saw Brider sitting outside his flat and asked her friend to drive her up to her door and wait for her as she felt “threatened by” and “uncomfortable” about him.
He gave her a bad feeling and she felt like she was being watched, a friend told police.”She was deeply concerned for her safety. She did not feel safe because of the neighbour,” another friend said. The night she was killed she spent time online speaking to friends.
After midnight Brider broke into Bonilla-Herrera’s house. A sleep app recording nighttime noises captured the first 10 minutes of her murder.
Bonilla-Herrera was heard saying “excuse me” and later “crying and begging for her life”.
”Stop, shut up,” Brider told her, threatening repeatedly to cut her throat. Screaming and an “audible struggle” could also be heard.
Police said Brider then sexually assaulted and violently attacked her.
Eight minutes into the recording three punches could be heard and Brider said to his victim “are you going to behave”.
The recording finishes with Bonilla-Herrera moaning and saying “where are you taking me?”.
Forensic evidence revealed Bonilla-Herrera tried to escape but was “dragged” back across the bed.
Brider took her to the lounge and she tried to fight him off and run away. He inflicted 51 separate blunt-force injuries and stabbed the terrified woman repeatedly.
Bonilla-Herrera’s friend went to meet her at the flat the next day for a planned bike ride. Brider spoke to the friend saying “she must still be asleep”.
Hours later Bonilla-Herrera was found dead - naked apart from one sock and showing distinct defensive wounds along with the almost 30 stab wounds that killed her.
Forensic examinations of Bonilla-Herrera and Brider’s flats revealed blood, fingerprints and semen pointing directly to the killer.
Brider tried to conceal his involvement, showering, washing clothing and disposing of the murder weapon and other items.
Afterwards, he drove to McDonald’s. Later when he spoke to police he acknowledged he knew a woman lived next door but claimed he did not know her or where she was from.
