Details of Tony Douglas Robertson's criminal history make for grim reading.
The 28-year-old was found guilty in the High Court two months ago of the May 2014 rape and murder of Auckland woman Blessie Goting- co. He has an extensive criminal history, described by a judge as ''appalling''.
It includes convictions for assault, aggravated robbery, possession of an offensive weapon, wilful damage, threatening to kill, burglary and receiving, and had most recently served eight years in prison on various charges, including the abduction and indecent assault of a 5-year-old girl, after earlier targeting four other children on their way home from school.
He appealed those sentences and alleged unfair judicial treating and framing by the police. He refused to participate in prisoner rehabilitation and sex offender treatment programmes and was denied parole because of his lack of reform.
He was released in December 2013, having served his full sentence. The Department of Corrections held grave concerns about him, however.
He was deemed at ''high risk'' of reoffending and subject to strict release conditions, which included GPS monitoring and a curfew.
The department stepped up personal monitoring after two breaches of his conditions and he was jailed again for a short time. Before his release, Corrections sought a court ''extended supervision order'' which was granted by a judge, but Robertson killed Mrs Gotingco before it came into effect.
Legitimate questions are now being asked about Robertson's offending, sentencing and monitoring. Corrections Minister Sam Lotu-Iiga yesterday announced an independent review ''of the action taken in relation to Robertson's oversight after he was released from prison''.
He is seeking advice on who will lead the review and what form it will take, and plans to discuss the matter at a Cabinet meeting on Monday.
Justice Minister Amy Adams has said she will ask questions about the case and the Sensible Sentencing Trust is calling for a law change to allow the Crown to apply for preventive detention at the end of an offender's sentence.
It is important Corrections' role is examined to determine whether there were any lapses or gaps in its handling of the case and whether procedures need to change accordingly.
The department maintains it did everything within its remit and the law to monitor Robertson.
It also seems the difference between Robertson's release conditions and the ''extended supervision order'' due to come into effect were negligible and unlikely to have made a difference.
The crimes were carried out within his curfew hours and he had not strayed into any prohibited area.
It is undoubtedly awful timing that recently enacted court-granted ''public protection orders'' (which allow Corrections to indefinitely keep inmates who have served their sentences but are still deemed dangerous in a secure prison environment) came too late in this case.
Mr McVicar's suggestion around the change to preventive detention laws seems unnecessary given the introduction of the afore-mentioned orders.
Much has been made of the judge's decision not to give Robertson preventive detention - an option currently only available at the time of sentencing. (The judge did have concerns about Robertson but decided he should not be considered a lost cause at the age of 19 and should be given the opportunity for rehabilitation in prison.)
Decisions are easy with the benefit of hindsight. Judges face huge challenges in the risk assessments they make, weighing public safety against the rights of the individual.
Preventive detention is an extreme measure, effectively judging people on what crimes they might commit, and does not allow for the possibility of reform. In this particular case, it also seems the threshold for granting preventive detention was not met.
However, the anger and heartbreak is palpable and understandable. It is vital to properly investigate whether our monitoring of criminals is adequate, and equally important to consider whether our rehabilitation system works.
But society may also have to accept that, in order to work within the law and allow opportunities for people to reform, it may sadly not be possible to entirely mitigate against violent offenders - even with the best will in the world.
