Home  >  Decisions, Statistics and Publications >  Decisions of Public Interest

Raymond Wahia RATIMA

Hearing:
01 December 2011
at (Withheld) Prison

Decision:
7 December 2011

Members of the Board:
Hon. M A Frater
Judge D Holderness
Dr J Skipworth
Mr R Wilson
Ms L Nathan

Observer:
Ms K Shore for Department of Corrections

Support Persons:
(Withheld)
(Withheld)
(Withheld)
(Withheld)

More than 19 years have elapsed since Raymond Wahia Ratima murdered his own three sons, his sister-in-law, her partner and their child.  He also killed their unborn child and attempted to murder his father-in-law.  He pleaded guilty to these appalling crimes and has remained in custody ever since.

Time has not diminished the tremendous hurt and sense of loss suffered by his remaining victim and the families of the victims.  We have received letters from and on behalf of some of them and we have met with a representative of others.  Their message is consistent and clear.  They oppose his release.  In the absence of any evidence that he has completed further intensive rehabilitative programmes, changed his behaviour and thinking, and developed a real understanding of the impact of his crimes and empathy for his victims, they fear that if released he will carry out threats made at the time of sentencing and that a number of lives would be at risk.

We put these concerns to Mr Ratima.  He responded thoughtfully and eloquently, expressing deep remorse.   He acknowledged the inability of his victims, particularly the children, to develop their identity and personality or to achieve their potential, that he had deprived (Withheld) and (Withheld) of the opportunity to love and nurture their unborn child, and that he had deprived all his victims of the opportunity to die of natural causes.

For some years now there has been mention in Board decisions about Mr Ratima’s willingness to be involved in a restorative justice or muru process with those of his victims who are willing to be involved.  As a first step, he seeks a meeting with members of his own whanau as, of course, they too have been deeply affected by his actions.  It is clear from our discussion with (Withheld) that this is an essential step in Mr Ratima’s rehabilitation.  For whatever reason, it has not yet been possible to arrange it.  It may be that it could be facilitated under the auspices of the Kaiwhakahaere at (Withheld) Corrections Facility.  Certainly, if he moved there, Mr Ratima would be closer to those members of his whangai whanau who have supported him over the years and attended his Board hearings.

It may be that Mr Ratima would feel sufficiently safe there to participate in the three month intensive Drug Treatment Unit Programme.  That is certainly an important component of his sentence plan which he has yet to complete.  On 7 January 2010 he attained an IDU 7 status for substance use.  He told us that he used drugs as a coping mechanism – to cope with sleeplessness occasioned by recurring nightmares, threats and assaults from other prisoners, and adverse news from the outside world.  However, to his credit, he has not used drugs since the end of 2009 and is now IDU free. 

There are no concerns about his behaviour in his present unit.  He is described is being quiet, compliant and co-operative.  He enjoys working in the organic garden.

He said that now that he has acquired a minimum security classification, he hopes to spend a couple of years on release to work before seeking release on parole with the support of the (Withheld) Programme.  Although these are both obvious and useful steps in any reintegration process we are not satisfied that Mr Ratima has reached the point where he can safely engage in either.  In our view, he still has a considerable amount of work to get on with before he will be a suitable candidate for release. 

As noted in previous Board decisions, Mr Ratima has spent five years or so working on a one-to-one basis with (Withheld), a bicultural therapist.  However, he has not worked with
(Withheld) for some time now.

Prior to the current hearing Mr Ratima met with a Departmental psychologist.  Significantly, he was unable to comment on Mr Ratima’s level of insight into his violent offending and the clarity or otherwise of his thinking because he was not prepared to discuss his offending with the psychologist. 

That is for the future.  In the meantime, we endorse the recommendations of the psychologist regarding Mr Ratima’s sentence management, namely:

1. That he be supported by his RRS Case Manager to initiate a muru process to take place prior to any return to Self Care;
2. That he be re-referred to a psychologist if there is any exacerbation of his trauma symptoms;
3. That he then work with his Case Manager to work towards a return to Self Care;
4. That if he continues to display pro-social behaviour in Self Care over an extended period, including abstinence from substances, he be considered for release to work;
5. That he then work towards a highly structured and supportive release environment such as the (Withheld).

In addition, of course, there is the need to complete the substance abuse programme referred to above.  It may be that that and the other steps referred to can be more readily and appropriately achieved at (Withheld).  That is a matter for Mr Ratima and the prison authorities.  We simply support the necessity for all these steps to be undertaken and for Mr Ratima’s success at each stage to be carefully tested over time.

At this stage parole is declined.  Mr Ratima does not seek it. 

He will be scheduled to be seen again in the normal statutory cycle.

However, because the journey towards release must necessarily be taken slowly and carefully, we give notice that the next time the Board sees Mr Ratima we will once again consider whether or not to make a postponement order up to three years duration should be made.  Of course, he has the right to legal advice in relation to this matter and legal representation at the hearing.  He will be given normal notice to this effect nearer to the time.

(signed)
Hon. M A Frater
Panel Convenor

Review

•    You may apply for a review of the Board’s decision under section 67(1).  The only grounds under which you may make an application for review are that the Board, in making its decision:

a)    Failed to comply with procedures in the Parole Act 2002; or
b)    Made an error of law; or
c)    Failed to comply with Board policy resulting in unfairness to the offender; or
d)    Based its decision on erroneous or irrelevant information that was material to the decision reached; or
e)    Acted without jurisdiction.

•    To apply for a review you must write to the Board within 28 days of its decision stating which of the above ground(s) you consider to be relevant in your case and giving reasons why you believe that ground(s) applies.
 
•    Reviews are considered on the papers only.  There is no hearing in respect of your Review Application.