'Is six years the going rate for taking a life in New Zealand?' The family of slain Invercargill teenager is terrified one of his killers could soon walk free.
The mind of Jack McAllister’s caregiver is often crowded by thoughts of the teen.
“I mourn the loss of Jack every day, and cannot believe that this nightmare of a situation has occurred.”
The 19-year-old was fatally stabbed in June 2017 after a group of young people lured him to ILT Stadium Southland with the promise of sex.
McAllister was stabbed 14 times in the attack, and died from his injuries in hospital.
Seven young people were charged with his murder. Three were found not guilty but Brayden Whiting-Roff and Georgia Rose Dickey pleaded guilty before trial, Christopher Brown was found guilty of murder and Laura Scheepers guilty of manslaughter.
Now six years after the murder, one of McAllister’s killers is already up for parole.
“It is unfathomable that it’s been six years since the murder of Jack, and now one is looking to walk free," McAllister's caregiver, who does not want to be named, says.
Brown will appear before the parole board this week, after his life sentence was quashed and replaced by a lesser prison term earlier this year.
While Brown didn’t stab McAllister, he was convicted as a party to the murder taking place.
McAllister’s caregiver says Jack’s death has had a lasting impact on her and her family’s mental health.
“Six years is not a consequence for a life. We all suffer immensely.”
Brown was originally sentenced to life behind bars with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years. But that was reduced on appeal in January to 12 years in prison with a minimum non-parole period of six years. Brown’s original sentence was ruled "manifestly unjust" due to his mental health issues, learning difficulties and background.
At sentencing, and later at the appeal, the court heard that despite wearing a balaclava and bringing a knife to the scene, Brown’s role in the murder was “peripheral”. It was detailed how Brown encouraged the others, but that he had a limited role in the assault itself.
But Jack McAllister’s family say there’s so much more to the story, and the implication this was a one-off incident is wrong.
“What wasn’t detailed in the decision, or what wasn’t investigated by the police and exposed during the trial was the relationship between Jack and Christopher Brown. The insidious past of repeated bullying and torment.”
'Fixated with hurting Jack'
Jack McAllister and his younger sister’s caregiver took them in when Jack was just five. He’d been subjected to what she calls “some of the worst abuse imaginable”.
She says he had complex needs, and suffered from poor mental health, depression, sleeplessness and chronic seizures. But she provided a warm, dry and safe home for the pair at her rural Southland property.
“He started to trust us and let his guard down. Ultimately this meant, however, that he did not have a good radar to [distinguish] who could and could not be trusted.”
It was near the family home in Invercargill that McAllister met Christopher Brown in 2007.
Brown had also been a 'child of the system', and McAllister's caregiver believes from that moment, Brown singled him out as his nemesis.
“I believe it was driven by Brown’s jealousy of Jack being treated as a son instead of a foster child. Jack was also popular with girls as he was good-looking, and a gentle soul.”
McAllister's caregiver says Brown started out verbally abusing him, which turned physical when they met again at high school.
In 2016 Jack suffered an arm injury after an alleged assault involving Brown, and several months later he was back in A&E with facial injuries after allegedly being punched.
“Brown continued being fixated with hurting Jack, he would play mind games, verbally and physically assault Jack. He would harass him and us.”
McAllister's family say Jack could be an aggressive talker, but not in his actions and he never retaliated.
“Brown was big, and Jack was a wee fella.”
Newsroom has seen two medical reports detailing McAllister’s injuries and visits to A&E from the alleged assaults, as well as reports from three visits to the Southland Mental Health Emergency team – which his caregiver says stem from the stress of Brown’s harassment.
She says about a month before McAllister’s death, Brown repeatedly threatened to kill him, and hurt his family. He then turned up at the family home.
“He arrived with other youths, threatened us and broke windows. We called the police and after they left, the youths and Brown returned to break more windows as we were huddled in the corner of a room.”
McAllister’s caregiver says most of the assaults and prolonged harassment were reported to police, but she was left dumbfounded when none of it was presented at trial.
“We remain bystanders in a judicial system that has failed Jack and us – and now we are facing a parole board hearing six short years after the murder of Jack.”
Disability services manager shared concerns
Disability services worker Jenny Hogg spent at least 20 hours a week with Jack before his death.
Hogg first met him back in 2014 as a local area coordinator for disability funded organisation AccessAbility. She says Jack had a number of disability related issues, but was a lovely young man who was honest, kind and treated her with respect.
But it wasn’t until she started working with him regularly back in 2016, that Jack first revealed to her his fears about Christopher Brown.
“I remember back not long after I started working with Jack, he said that he would die, and felt that Mr Brown would be involved.”
“The fear Jack had in relation to Mr Brown was a daily conversation, and all activities were planned around Jack not being anywhere near him.”
Hogg says she witnessed Brown threaten Jack multiple times by text, or over the phone and supported him to lay complaints with police.
“I supported Jack on at least five occasions, with police doing little to nothing and advising that until something happened there was nothing they could do.”
Hogg believes Brown was on a mission to make Jack’s life a “living hell”, and says Jack was failed by every organisation he encountered.
“I wrote back in early January 2017 in an email to my management team, that I believed Jack would be dead if significant changes were not made, because I was also fearful of Brown and what he may have been capable of.”
Later, Jack’s murder hit Hogg hard.
“I’ve completed over 60 sessions of one-on-one therapy to try and help me work through, not only my grief, but utter guilt and anger.”
“Could I have done more to have protected Jack? It’s the question I live with everyday.”
Hogg is now concerned what it will mean if Brown is granted parole this week.
“I worry that if Brown is paroled without significant cognitive behavioural therapy, that he’ll continue to stray towards other vulnerable people”.
Fears for safety
Jack’s caregiver is also terrified Brown will walk free, and is concerned for her safety and the safety of his sister.
“It has been argued that it’s manifestly unjust for Brown to remain incarcerated because of his adolescent brain, and that he may be more receptive to treatment and rehabilitation.”
“Given the repeated abuse, I cannot see how Brown would be receptive to treatment”.
Jack’s family don’t believe Brown was on the “periphery” of the murder, and had the prolonged abuse in the lead up to Jack’s death been presented at trial, his sentence may not have been reduced on appeal.
“It should not be a mitigating factor that the murder was committed by youths, in fact, this case should be an example - highlighting the ramifications of making the wrong choices.”
“While I can agree with the rationale that youth brains are not fully developed, there still needs to be consequences for making grave decisions that take away a precious life from a family.”
Jack’s caregiver is now preparing to deliver a statement at Brown’s parole board hearing, in the hope it will convince the board to keep Brown behind bars.
In a written statement police say they have “nothing to add at this time, but appreciate this is a trying and difficult time for the family.”
“We do note, however, that the evidence able to be presented in court is ultimately a decision for the judge presiding over the proceeding to make.”
