The Parole Board agreed to release him from prison in June this year, subject to several conditions, including one that he attend a progress hearing.
That hearing took place yesterday.
As part of the hearing, Dallison told the board he was “grateful” to be on parole and was “starting to reintegrate into society and normal life”.
He was “naturally apprehensive” when he was first released because of media coverage of his release.
“In reality, that was unfounded. I have been able to move and adjust into society okay,” he said.
“I keep to myself, I keep busy doing individual activities and work around the home where I’m staying. Initially, I anticipated there might have been problems, but I haven’t seen any problems.
“I was playing golf and I joined up with another guy, and after two or three hours he said, ‘I realise who you are, but that’s okay’. He was upfront about it, and we carried on in a normal fashion.”
His lawyer, Kerry Cook, told the board that Dallison had shown “exemplary compliance” with his parole conditions since his release.
Dallison was taking a “victim-focused approach” to his rehabilitation and reintegration and was making “therapeutic progress”.
Dr Ian Dallison and his partner, Judge Jane Farish. Composite photo / NZME
“He is acutely aware of the harm he has caused,” Cook said.
“He has used therapy to change his focus from financial success to … relationships.”
Cook made an application to the board to vary Dallison’s parole conditions so he could move back to the wider Canterbury area.
He would still be excluded from Christchurch city and Banks Peninsula to ensure he had no contact with his victims. But he wanted to move to the “west Canterbury” area and buy a property so he could be closer to his support network.
Dallison said he was doing well on parole, he felt his life was “in limbo” living so far from the place he’d spent his whole life, and where his main support people were.
“I have no desire to be in Christchurch itself,” he said.
“But I feel it’s time, I want to move forward in my pathway to reintegration.”
Lawyer Kerry Cook. Photo / NZMW
The board pointed out that Dallison had been out of prison for only a matter of months, and his desire to change his conditions so soon could be seen as highlighting a lack of insight into the harm he had caused his victims.
Dallison disagreed with that and said he was prepared to “keep more than a respectful distance from them”.
“The thing is, I’m proposing still having a significant exclusion zone to protect the victims and being respectful of them in that way – but also it allows me to move forward,” he argued.
“I think it is going to be better for everyone involved if I’m moving forward in my life.
“I’ve formally apologised to them, I’ve said I’d be open to restorative justice … but apart from that, there is little I can do to reassure them that I don’t have any negative thoughts about them or I have any thoughts of going and doing anything to them.
“I can understand they might not agree with that … but still having an exclusion zone where I would be more than an hour’s travel from their place of residence is still quite reasonable. And I would still have to be monitored.”
Dallison said he just wanted to be closer to his loved ones and supporters as he “adjusted to retirement”.
He spoke of feeling lonely at his current residence, and how that had allowed him to “ruminate”, which was not ideal.
He was now focusing on his health and said he was “eating well, playing golf, getting back into my photography” and “focusing on moving forward”.
He called at least one support person each day.
“Things like that keep on top of loneliness,” he explained.
Cook argued that, while the victims had a right to a view on Dallison’s parole, that view “should not be determinative”.
“There is a societal interest in [his] rehabilitation.”
The current parole conditions resulted in “limitations” to that pathway, as Dallison’s support people were at least a five-hour drive or several flights away.
Christchurch eye surgeon Ian Dallison.
The board did not decide on the proposed variation at the hearing because the registered victims had not had sufficient time to consider it and provide a response.
A further hearing will be held next month to rule formally on the application.
Further monitoring hearings would not be required.
“You are doing well, and we acknowledge that,” the board panel convenor said.
The crimes of Ian Dallison
After the Christchurch earthquake, Dallison sold the Merivale property where his eye surgery practice was based to Ceccarelli.
The property was redeveloped, after which Dallison took on a long-term commercial lease.
Over the years, his practice struggled financially, and he was unable to meet operating expenses. By the end of 2020, he had incurred a lot of debt, and Ceccarelli evicted him.
As a result, Dallison was declared bankrupt. Later that day, he went to Ceccarelli’s home and tried to kill him.
Dallison appeared before the Parole Board for the first time in November 2024 and was refused an early release because of the risk of an “extreme violent response to a stressful situation”.
He appeared again on May 12, and the board was satisfied he no longer posed a risk to community safety.
He was granted parole and released in early June.
The parole decision
A full Parole Board decision on his May appearance said there was evidence of a “significant shift in [Dallison’s] thinking”, particularly with respect to his “approach to the views of others and his need for control”.
The board found that Dallison’s risk could be managed in the community until his sentence ended.
He was to be released to an address in Marlborough, “well away from his victims”, with good support. The “stigma and consequences of his convictions will mean that he will lead a very different lifestyle”.
He is subject to electronic monitoring and is not to enter Canterbury unless he has prior written approval from a probation officer.
Other conditions included no contact with his victims and not possessing or having under his control any firearm or ammunition.
He is not to “engage or have any role in the affairs” of any business, trust, company or other entity, unless approved by a probation officer.