The armed gunman sent to prison for the home invasion of an Auckland businessman at the centre of a new book has been refused parole after refusing to take part in a rehabilitation programme designed for high-risk violent offenders.
Ned Paraha faces another year inside before being released at theend of his full sentence of five years and 10 months for an armed assault at the Auckland home of Matt Blomfield.
Blomfield was the central figure in a book called Whale Oil which was published last week.
The book charts his seven-year fight following a string of articles on the Whale Oil website.
It includes an account of the home invasion and speculates on links between the attack by Paraha and a campaign of harassment which began at the time of the 2012 blog posts.
It details the failure by police to investigate a range of complaints related to the campaign of harassment, including whether Paraha was hired to carry out the home invasion which saw shots fired and left Blomfield a bloodied mess.
When asked by the Herald if police would read the book, headquarters said in a statement: "Police will not be drawn into making any comment on what steps may or may not have been taken in an active investigation.
"We welcome anyone with new information to contact Police, and any information not previously supplied will be assessed and reviewed as part of our criminal investigation."
Matt Blomfield and his wife Rebecca Blatchford at their home in Greenhithe, Auckland. Photo / Hayden Woodward
Paraha's parole hearing came mid-May as the book, written by journalist Margie Thomson, was at the printers.
The parole board told Paraha, according to its decision, he knew he needed to complete a rehabilitation programme designed for serious violent offenders with a high risk of committing further crime.
It said Paraha was on a waiting list for the programme yet had not done it. He told the Parole Board he did not want to.
Paraha had one more parole hearing in March, which could present a chance for an early exit from prison, but would be released otherwise in May next year.
The parole board decision pointed to the judge who sentenced Paraha, saying he was "very lucky he was not facing a sentence of life imprisonment for murder".
Blomfield, who has told the Herald he also felt fortunate not to have been murdered, said he was pleased for his family Paraha would not be released yet.
"It's terrifying to think a person who tried to kill you is being released on parole and he hasn't done any of the rehabilitation that was recommended."
The cover of the Whale Oil book features a caricature of Cameron Slater. Photo / Supplied
Blomfield said police needed to study the book for information gathered over three years of investigation by Thomson.
"There's so much in there they don't know and they should have a look at what has been collated by someone who dedicated her life to finding out what went on."
Police had taken a fresh look at Blomfield's complaints after he went to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The outcome of the inquiry is with Crown Law for a decision on whether it should result in any charges.
An early police look led to a concession from a senior detective that the original investigation into the home invasion should have looked at whether Paraha was put up to the attack.
"I don't believe there's been any steps to talk to this guy to find out from him. It seems odd no steps have been taken to find out from him."
The book details the missed opportunities in the police investigation, including the difficulty Blomfield had getting officers interested in properly investigating matters ranging from his information being taken and used for the blog posts through to the home invasion.
Blomfield sued Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater for defamation, eventually winning after seven years in the courts. Slater was then successfully prosecuted at the Human Rights Tribunal for breaching Blomfield's privacy by using 10 years of his personal data, taken from a hard drive and filing cabinet, as the basis for the dozens of blog posts he ran.
The High Court said Slater would have had difficulty proving the claims he made against Blomfield with the evidence he wanted to present. The Tribunal dismissed Slater's claims the articles were journalism, describing one as a "character assassination".
