Some will make arguments in Corkill's favour - they will say he has done his time behind bars, and was obviously assessed as being suitable to live under the extended supervision order scheme, without posing a risk to the public.
That may be so.
But surely his history and the severity of his offending was sufficient to ensure that people living around him should have been told of his past.
Yes, there is a risk that having that history revealed to his neighbours may well have impeded Corkill's chance to reintegrate into society. In this day and age, there are probably privacy issues also.
But in the grey area where the rights of offenders and the rights of the general public meet, surely this is one instance where the rights of the public must come first.
Community Probation Service regional manager Heather Mackie told the Chronicle that anyone with concerns about an offender should contact police or community probation.
But that's a bit difficult when the person's history has been concealed.
The fact that the other residents in Rothesay Flats only became aware of Corkill's past through a New Plymouth District Court employee visiting a relative is a bad look.
It's hard to imagine anyone involved with the council or the probation service not realising that neighbours would be concerned about someone with Corkill's background living among them.
The other residents of Rothesay Flats will no doubt now feel a sense of relief that Corkill has elected to move on and live with a friend, no doubt having considered the potential animosity from neighbours in the wake of his past being revealed.
Hopefully that relief will overcome the feeling those same neighbours likely felt when details of this situation first began to emerge - the feeling of being duped.
Feedback: editor@wanganuichronicle.co.nz
