KEY POINTS:
Former policeman and convicted rapist Bob Schollum will have another chance at parole after winning an appeal against a decision to keep him in prison.
Schollum won the appeal on a legal technicality after arguing against the Parole Board's refusal to release him on six grounds, five of which were dismissed in a ruling released yesterday.
But Judge Patrick Toomey upheld Schollum's appeal on one ground - that the board had not given due weight to a Parole Act provision relating to support and supervision of an offender following release.
The board now plans to rehear Schollum's parole application at the "earliest possible opportunity", a spokeswoman said.
Schollum is serving eight years in prison for rape, unlawful sexual connection and abduction for sex, and made the bid for parole in April.
He was found guilty with fellow former policeman Brad Shipton and businessman Peter McNamara of the pack rape of a Mt Maunganui woman in 1989. Firefighter Warren Hales admitted abducting the woman for the rape.
In Schollum's appeal, his lawyer, Michael Bott, argued that the Parole Board had been biased and "made a moral judgment" in refusing Schollum parole.
Among other points, Mr Bott took issue with a comment by the board convener in response to a question to Schollum about his plans after release.
Schollum told the board, "I want to be a father, I am a family man, I believe I am a good father, I want to go and at least support my children on the sideline of their sports ... I want to be around when they need a father."
The convener's response was: "I guess all the men in this prison say the same thing."
Judge Toomey said the convener's comment was "a reasonably accurate statement of fact" and Schollum's response was "the typical unspecific reply most offenders give to similar questions".
He dismissed the allegation of bias against the board, and also disagreed with Mr Bott's contention that the panel had refused parole based solely on Schollum's denial of his offending.
Schollum maintains the rape was consensual group sex and in a psychologist's report done in February this year he was said to be "lacking in genuine concern" for the victim.
Judge Toomey said the board found Schollum still posed undue risk to the safety of the community not only because of his denial of guilt, but also because of his lack of remorse, his lack of empathy for the victim, and other reasons.
In its April decision, the board said Schollum had a "very arrogant view" and "his thinking had not changed in the slightest since 1989 when he was living the life with multiple sexual partners and group sex and taking part in this brutal rape".
"Mr Schollum has shown no remorse and taken absolutely no responsibility of his behaviour on that day other than regretting coming there in police uniform, which he is embarrassed and ashamed about."
Judge Toomey agreed that Schollum's expressions of shame and embarrassment did not equate to remorse, and he said the only aspect of the parole application the board did not properly consider related to section 28 (2) (a) of the Parole Act.
This is the section dealing with support and supervision for an offender after release, and the judge said the board made an error of law by not making specific reference to the section, and by failing to evaluate submissions made by Mr Bott regarding such support and supervision for Schollum.
The Parole Board last week released a decision detailing a failed bid by Shipton for parole.
Shipton is denying comments by the board that he effectively confessed to the rape.
PAROLE ACT 2002
Section 28 (2) (a) states that the Parole Board may release an offender on parole only if it is satisfied the offender will not pose an undue risk to the safety of the community, while having regard to the support and supervision available to the offender following release.
