RAWIRI - Whatarangi - 10/11/2011
Parole hearing
Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002
Whatarangi RAWIRI
Hearing:
10 November 2011
at (Withheld)
Members of the Board:
Judge D J Carruthers
Judge E Paul
Assoc. Professor P Brinded
Mr A Ritchie
Ms K Snook
Observer:
Ms K Govind for Department of Corrections
Support Persons:
(Withheld)
(Withheld)
(Withheld)
DECISION OF THE BOARD
Whatarangi Rawiri, aged 27, appears for parole to be considered.
She is serving a life sentence for murder. It was a murder committed when she was a young teenager.
She was part of a group then. It was a dreadful murder. She was a central part of it.
We began the session today with her by recounting to her the views of the family of her victim. There has been a letter recently written by the mother of the victim and she was reminded of the terms of that as well. In prison she has been doing well recently with perhaps a hiccup. She has completed the Kowhiritanga Programme. She has some maintenance parts of that yet to conclude.
She has been in the Self Care Units since September. She was removed from Self Care because of a relationship with another inmate but she has now returned. An application has been made for release to work for her. Nothing yet has come from that. She has not yet had home leaves or other reintegrative leaves.
There is a very strong proposal for her release. Today she is supported by (Withheld), her (Withheld) and (Withheld). (Withheld) has purchased some transition homes. There is one unit which he thinks is particularly appropriate for Ms Rawiri. It houses another ex-inmate on parole. He says their experience is, depending on the inmates, that the mutual support that can be given by one inmate to another is, in fact, a positive thing, as they complete their journey from prison together. In this respect he is repeating something of the wisdom to be found in halfway houses in Canada and other places where that is a very well known characteristic of halfway homes.
Unfortunately, however, the accommodation arrangement has not been approved by CPS. One proposal was that Ms Rawiri’s (Withheld) place be used for this purpose. It would seem to have other difficulties.
For our part, we are attracted to the notion of the transition home. We think that the support of an appropriate other prisoner on parole can be seen in a constructive way. We would ask that that be reviewed by CPS for the purposes of their next report.
There has been reference to a relationship with another inmate and the way in which that has been advanced in the Self Care Units. There has been reference to that as an ingredient in showing Ms Rawiri not yet to be suitable for release because of her propensity to break rules. We are not overly concerned about the relationship. Minor rule breaking also can be taken out of proportion. The question for us is about undue risk on release and that will be the central part of our enquiry when we see her next.
We are not, however, going to release her on parole today. We think it is too soon. Having regard to the length of time she has been in prison there needs to be careful steps towards release which will include, if possible, release to work but certainly home leaves and other reintegrative leaves. We recommend and support those.
We will see her again for parole to be reconsidered in February. No promises are made. We do ask that the question of accommodation in the transition homes provided by (Withheld) be re-canvassed by CPS in the light of our comments to give the Board an option to consider. We also ask for a residential restrictions report on any such address.
(signed)
Judge D J Carruthers
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.