After considering the case, including victim impact statements and specialist reports, the board declined parole for Reekie (file image). Photo: 123RF
In the week before Susan's sister died from cancer, she promised her she would do everything she could to keep her rapist locked behind bars.
That promise meant keeping across Nicholas Reekie's parole board hearings, advocating on behalf of her sister, explaining how his actions had impacted on her family, and most importantly, having the chance to give her view on why he shouldn't be released.
Her father had previously been the main point of contact while her sister was alive, but Susan* contacted police following her death in 2020 to explain she would be the new advocate - the person they could contact regarding any developments or hearings.
So, it was a shock when she recently heard second-hand that Reekie was about to have his first hearing - and the family had not been notified.
If it weren't for that person, the hearing would have come and gone, and Susan would never have had the chance to keep her word.
"I promised my sister I would do absolutely everything in my power to keep him behind bars - my hope was for life. She said, 'Thank you, I know you won't let me down'."
Despite what she had been led to believe, it turns out the families of victims who have died don't get notified about upcoming hearings, as the victim's name is removed from the Victim Notification Register after they die.
So, while they have a right to speak at a parole board hearing, they are unlikely to know it is even happening in the first place.
"It makes no sense to me that families have the right to speak on behalf of a victim who has passed, but that's obviously difficult if you are not advised of the hearing - even if, like in my circumstances, you stay in contact.
"The fact she has passed away does not mean her crime didn't happen.
"Without (hearing second-hand), that date of his Parole Board hearing would have come and gone and we would have had no idea. My fear is of one day picking up the paper and seeing a headline that a serial rapist has been released on parole."
Susan's sister was 23 when Reekie snatched her from the street in broad daylight, took her to Helensville and raped her. She only escaped when he finally fell asleep.
She wasn't his first - nor last - victim.
In 2003, Reekie was sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum non-parole period of 20 years after being convicted on 31 charges, including abduction and rape, against four females aged between 11 and 69.
The offending occurred between 1992 and 2002. Over that period, he was also convicted of abducting two young girls, and he served other terms of imprisonment for burglary, aggravated burglary and aggravated assault.
Earlier this month, Reekie, who has more than 100 convictions, including 23 for sexual offending and 12 for violent crimes, came before the Parole Board for the first time.
Since being behind bars he has faced 76 misconduct charges and made more than 2000 complaints about his treatment in prison, a figure described in a psychologist's report as 'excessive'.
After initially being told she would not be able to speak, Susan was allowed to address the board members on her sister's behalf.
She told them she felt Reekie had no "morals, remorse or even a real comprehension of the damage he has done". That was evident, she said, from his "blatant disregard for our justice system", referring to all of his complaints.
Susan said while she believes in second chances, she feels Reekie has already had more than that, and she wanted him to remain behind bars.
"There's just no sign of remorse."
After considering the case, including victim impact statements and specialist reports, the board declined parole.
"Having regard to his history of offending and its seriousness and the background matters referred to in the psychologist's report, including his apparent preoccupation over the years with decisions made by others affecting him, we endorse the psychologist's view that Mr Reekie will require a lengthy period of treatment to prepare him for his participation in prison-based programmes."
It will be at least another two years before he can come before the board again - a date Susan will have to proactively seek out, as she still can not go on the register as a representative of her sister.
Police have acknowledged Susan's concerns about the Victim Notification Register, but say the law currently only allows a living victim, or the family of someone who has died as a direct result of a crime, to be on the Victim Notification Register.
However, a spokeswoman said police also recognise the need to improve the process.
"Police are looking to work alongside other justice sector colleagues on options to improve the process and ensure it best serves the needs of all victims.
"As it stands, the Victim Notification Register remains an important and valuable service for the safety and long-term wellbeing of victims."
In the meantime, Susan is urging families to be proactive in finding out when an offender is due to come before the board so they don't miss out on having the chance to speak at a hearing on a loved one's behalf if they want to.
*Name changed to protect the identity of her sister, who has automatic name suppression.
* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.