Key Takeaways
- Joseph Dally buried a young girl alive in a shallow grave at Pencarrow, near Wellington; her remains were discovered six weeks later.
- He was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1990 and has been denied parole on numerous occasions.
- At an April hearing before the Parole Board, his lawyer sought a non‑publication order because suitable, high‑supervision accommodation is scarce and providers fear public backlash.
- The board granted the order, citing both the lack of release options and concerns for Dally’s personal safety from vigilante justice.
- An updated psychological review has been ordered to examine his risk profile over the past 35 years, building on earlier assessments that flagged high psychopathy and a noted enjoyment of the crime.
The Crime and Its Discovery
In 1989 Joseph Dally lured a child to a remote area near Pencarrow, just outside Wellington, where he buried her alive in a shallow grave. The victim’s body remained undiscovered for approximately six weeks, prompting a major police investigation that eventually linked Dally to the offence through forensic evidence and witness testimony. The brutal nature of the killing—burying a child while she was still alive—shocked the nation and contributed to the case’s lasting infamy in New Zealand’s criminal history.
Conviction and Sentencing
Following a trial that attracted widespread media attention, Dally was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1990. The sentence reflected the gravity of his actions and the need for long‑term protection of the public. Since incarceration, he has appeared before the Parole Board on multiple occasions, each time receiving a denial of parole due to concerns about his risk of reoffending and the insufficient availability of appropriate post‑release management options.
Recent Parole Consideration and Non‑Publication Order Request
At an April hearing held at the Auckland South Corrections Facility, Dally’s counsel, Emma Priest, applied for a non‑publication order to suppress any identifying details about him should he ever be released. Priest argued that the few accommodation providers capable of offering the highest level of supervision and intensive reintegration programmes had signalled they would refuse to take him because of his notoriety and the anticipated public backlash against their facilities and other residents.
Board’s Reasoning for the Order
The Parole Board’s written decision emphasized two interrelated considerations. First, the scarcity of suitable, high‑supervision housing meant that releasing Dally without such placement would jeopardize public safety. Second, the board expressed concern for Dally’s own personal safety, noting that individuals seeking extrajudicial justice might target him given the heinous nature of his crime. The board characterised the situation as exceptional, warranting restraint on publication to protect both the community and the offender while a viable release plan is explored.
Psychological Review Ordered
Recognising the need for current, comprehensive information, the board directed the prison’s chief psychologist to commission a fresh psychological case review before Dally’s next appearance before the board later this year. The review is intended to revisit “the entirety of the psychological information” to ensure that every relevant strand of his risk profile over the past 35 years is thoroughly examined. This directive follows two earlier assessments, which the board deemed insufficiently up‑to‑date given the length of his incarceration and evolving understanding of his psychological makeup.
Scope of the Updated Psychological Review
The ordered evaluation will encompass all prior psychological reports, behavioural observations, and risk‑assessment tools administered during Dally’s imprisonment. By integrating data from the initial incarceration period through to the present, the psychologist aims to produce a holistic view of his traits, motivations, and any changes in risk factors. The board stressed that this exhaustive approach is essential for informing any future decisions regarding parole, accommodation, and community safety measures.
Dally’s Own Statements About the Offending
In a 2014 interaction with the board, Dally acknowledged that he had “enjoyed the event and the circumstances of his crime and the control he could exercise on the child during his dreadful offending.” This admission contrasted with earlier denials in which he minimized any sexual component and described the offence as “ancient history.” Later psychological notes indicated that, while he eventually conceded the act was mostly sexually motivated, he continued to deny sadistic elements and downplayed the premeditated nature of the crime, framing it instead as a random act of violence.
Psychopathy Assessment and Risk Evolution
A 2009 review using the Psychopathy Checklist‑Revised (PCL‑R) yielded a high score, leading evaluators to conclude that Dally displayed pronounced psychopathic traits linked to a heightened likelihood of serious violent and sexual recidivism. Over time, however, the board’s risk assessment has shifted: his risk of violent offending is now considered low, while his risk of sexual offending has been re‑classified as average. This evolution reflects both ageing and the impact of long‑term incarceration, though the board remains cautious given the enduring severity of his original offence.
Board’s Considerations of Public Profile and Risk Formulation
The board explicitly noted that Dally’s case retains a “live infamy in the public domain,” with the manner of his detection, trial, and conviction widely known. Because of this notoriety, any risk formulation must account not only for actuarial probabilities but also for the potential for community‑driven retaliation or vigilante action. The board therefore stressed that public safety considerations extend beyond statistical risk to include the real‑world dynamics of how society perceives and might react to a high‑profile offender seeking release.
Implications and Next Steps
The granting of the non‑publication order means that, for the present, media outlets and the public are barred from publishing details that could identify Dally should he ever be considered for release. The upcoming psychological review will play a pivotal role in shaping the board’s future deliberations, providing an evidence‑based foundation for any accommodation plan, risk‑management strategy, or parole recommendation. Until such a plan is devised and vetted, Dally will remain incarcerated, with the board continuing to monitor both his psychological status and the feasibility of securing appropriate, high‑supervision housing upon any potential release.