Wickliffe pleads ‘good side’

Press, 7 December 1988, Page 8

Wickliffe pleads ‘good side’

PA Auckland A convicted killer and armed robber, Dean Wickliffe, says there is a side to his personality of which the public is not aware. “I think there is a lot of good in me that people do not realise, because they do not even know me. They have a view of me that has been created largely by the news media,” Wickliffe told Mr Justice Tompkins at the High Court at Auckland yesterday. His Honour reserved decision on an application by the Secretary for Justice to recall Wickliffe to a life sentence for manslaughter. Wickliffe was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1972 for the murder of a Wellington jeweller, but 15 years later appealed against the conviction which was changed to manslaughter. Last year he was released on parole, but was jailed for 7% years in July after being found guilty of robbing an Onehuiiga video store and unlawful possession of a pistol. Mr Mark Woolford, representing the Secretary for Justice, said the Court had an overriding duty to protect the public. Wickliffe, he said, would be eligible for parole in just over three years on the robbery and pistol matters. “If he was recalled (to continue the life sentence) it would give flexibility to the parole board to enable them to decide when Wickliffe may present no further danger to the community, and it is really on that basis that the application is made,” Mr Woolford said.

In support of the application Mr Woolford cited the recent convictions and Wickliffe’s access to firearms. He was a serious danger to the community and it was in the public interest to recall him, he said.

Wickliffe, who represented himself aided by a former prisoner, Mr

Robert Coombridge, contended that he had already served 15 years for manslaughter. Since 1917, he said, noone had served more than 10 years for manslaughter. “Considering that I received quite a substantial sentence for the aggravated robbery, it would be excessive to further recall me to continue serving a life sentence for which I had already served 15 years,” Wickliffe said.

As well as being excessive, Wickliffe said, it would be wrong in law. “You can only be punished for the crime once, not twice, which would be the case if I were to be recalled.” Wickliffe contended that at the time of his appeal, when the conviction for murder was reduced to manslaughter, he should have been re-sentenced.

“If they intended to give me a life sentence,” he said, “They should have quashed my life sentence for murder and imposed a life sentence for manslaughter.” He said it was wrong to pre-judge him and say he would get out of prison a worse man than he was. Wickliffe said he had harboured a grievance, first that he had been convicted of murder, not manslaughter, and then, when the charge was reduced, over the fact the life sentence remained.

In spite of the bitterness and anger, which he still felt, he had tried to put his past behind him when he left jail. However, “impossible” residential and work conditions and constant “harassment” from the police and the probation service while on parole, made It inevitable he would “run back into trouble.”

“What I am saying to you is that there is another side to me which never really got an opportunity to develop because of the difficulties which were made even more difficult.”