Peter Joseph Holdem in a photo taken on the day of his arrest for the murder of Louisa Damodran in 1986.
Peter Joseph Holdem in a photo taken on the day of his arrest for the murder of Louisa Damodran in 1986.
A recidivist criminal jailed since 1987 after he abducted and murdered a Christchurch schoolgirl will remain behind bars after refusing to participate in rehabilitative treatment and making no progress in prison.
And he refused to attend his own parole hearing after media applied to attend and report on proceedings.
Peter Joseph Holdem was jailed for life in 1987 for murdering 6-year-old Louisa Damodran near Christchurch.
Louisa Bina Damodran was kidnapped and murdered as she walked home from school in October 1986.
Louisa was just days shy of her 7th birthday when Holdem kidnapped her as she walked home from school in October 1986.
She was just 100m from home when Holdem - who already had an extensive rap sheet - swiped her off the street and drove her to the Waimakariri River north of the city.
There, he throttled Louisa and drowned her.
Her body was found downstream three weeks later.
At the time of the murder Holdem was on parole after serving time for the 1982 attempted rape of a 10-year-old in a Christchurch park.
He has a history of sex attacks on children dating back to the 1970s.
The Parole Board have repeatedly refused Holdem any release from prison since he became eligible for a hearing in 1996, saying he is too dangerous to the community to be freed.
His most recent hearing was no different.
Holdem was due to appear before the board on March 28 but waived his right to a hearing stating concerns about media coverage.
The Herald had applied to the board to attend the hearing and report on the process, but that was declined by Parole Board chairman and panel convenor Sir Ron Young.
“Mr Holdem decided not to appear today. He indicated that he was concerned about the presence of the media,” said Young in a decision released to the Herald after it had been sent to the victims.
Louisa's grave. Photo / Simon Baker
“As chairperson I had considered an application by the media to be present at Mr Holdem’s hearing, but in my view, there were exceptional circumstances and I decided that the application should be refused.
“Mr Holdem has been advised of my decision but apparently he still wishes to maintain his waiver.”
Young said when Holdem was last seen in 2021 he agreed to repeat a child sex offender’s treatment programme with a view to beginning the reintegration process.
“The psychological report provided to the board ahead of the March hearing noted that Mr Holdem said that he did not think he needed any further treatment and was not motivated to undertake the programme,” said Young.
“He has little real empathy with the victims and had significant memory limitation.
“He is assessed as being high risk of sexual reoffending and medium risk of violence.
“Really, since our last contact with Mr Holdem in November 2021 no real progress had been made.”
Peter Joseph Holdem, 30, leaving the Christchurch District Court in 1986. Photo / The Christchurch Star
The board heard Holdem had told his case manager he wanted to reintegrate “now” and felt he had done enough in prison to warrant that.
He had done the child sex offender treatment programme in 1995 and in 1997 and claimed he had also completed “34 one-on-one sessions with a psychologist” by 2013.
“However, after further discussion, Mr Holdem told the case manager that he would be prepared to do the programme and so he is now identified to undertake the 2024 programme,” said Young.
“And so, we are satisfied Mr Holdem remains an undue risk.”
Young said a registered victim of Holdem’s offending against Louisa also spoke to the board and firmly opposed his release.
“The deep hurt and trauma the family suffered from Mr Holdem’s crime has never left them,” he said.
“We will see him again in two years’ time, by the end of February 2025, at which time he should have completed the programme and we can review whether any further rehabilitation might be required and what reintegration might be appropriate.“
The board would need a full psychological report before that hearing.
