A report into how convicted child sex offender Tony Robertson was freed from jail to be able to commit rape and murder has cleared the departments of Corrections and Probation of blame.

Blessie Gotingco was killed by Robertson on May 24, 2014.

Tony Robertson. Photo: Tony White/Fairfax NZ.

The government inquiry into Robertson's management before and after his release from jail in 2013 was in response to the public consternation that an individual could commit such a 'bestial” crime, so soon after his release from prison for another deeply repugnant crime - child sex offending committed in Tauranga.

It aroused suspicions of inadequacy in the way government agencies had managed his imprisonment and then managed him after release, says report writer Mel Smith.

He finds that Robertson's management after his release exceeded the mandatory standards. His management was careful, responsive and based on assessed risk.

The level of management oversight, the frequency of reporting, the attention to electronic monitoring information, the active liaison with police, and the responses to noncompliance were in accordance with policy and standards.

The inquiry could find no instance of Corrections in practice treating, or responding to, Robertson as other than a high-risk offender.

'I feel it necessary also to say, as part of my concluding comments, that there are others who have also been significantly affected by Mrs Gotingco's murder, including frontline Corrections and police officers who carried out their responsibilities in relation to Robertson following his release,” says Mel.

'When I interviewed these people during the inquiry, their distress about the death of Mrs Gotingco was palpable.”

The findings and consequent recommendations in the report are presented for the purpose of improving existing arrangements and practices, says Mel.

'Criminal justice is complex and demanding. It can be extremely stressful on those who work within it.

'Everyone involved in the system, judges, police officers and Corrections staff, face huge challenges and especially so in managing individuals imprisoned for extended periods for serious crimes like Robertson's.

'The information obtained by the inquiry compels me to the view that Robertson, and only Robertson, can be held responsible for what happened to Mrs Gotingco. That was the outcome of the trial when Robertson was charged with rape and murder, found guilty of both crimes and sentenced to life imprisonment.”

Mel went on to say that elements of Robertson's case management could have been done better, in particular an outstanding special condition to attend a psychological assessment. Some decisions could have been recorded more fully, such as lowering his banner risk to medium.

Risk instruments specific to child sex offenders should have been applied while Robertson was in the community. None of these actions materially affected the standard of his management.

In the weeks leading up to Mrs Gotingco's murder, Robertson had been reporting as directed, attending his alcohol and drug counselling sessions as directed, living at his address as directed, complying with his curfew as directed, and keeping out of exclusion zones as directed. In those final weeks, he was also behaving correctly towards his probation officer. Throughout, he had the support of family members.

Corrections should have begun Robertson's release planning sooner, says Mel.

The special conditions of Robertson's release and the special conditions of Robertson's extended supervision order were both appropriately directed towards his known risk of child sex offending.

The Parole Board imposed all the special conditions recommended by Corrections.

Corrections should have consulted its own psychologists before recommending to the Parole Board the condition that Robertson undergo a psychological assessment, and if necessary treatment, on release, says Mel.

This failure led to the imposition of a special condition that Corrections' psychologists did not support but were responsible for implementing.

Corrections also should have assessed Robertson for an extended supervision order, and then made an application for an order earlier than it did so that, if imposed by the High Court, the order could have come into effect at Robertson's release.

Nonetheless, the fact no extended supervision order was in place before Mrs Gotingco's murder made no material difference to Robertson's supervision.

Supervision standards are more stringent for those granted parole than for those released on conditions imposed by courts at sentencing, says the report.

This is because most offenders under release conditions have usually served less than two years for less serious offences. Robertson is among a third category who have been convicted of a very serious offence and served their sentence in full, having never been granted parole.

In those circumstances, the Parole Board is limited to imposing release conditions applicable for a maximum of six months. Robertson fell into this category.

Corrections does not have a supervision standard specifically for Robertson's category of offender.

In such cases, it applies the higher parole standard, which was the case for Robertson.

The full report is here.