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

Whatarangi RAWIRI

Hearing:
12 September 2011
at [Withheld]

Members of the Board:
Judge A Kiernan – Panel Convenor
Ms R Pritchard – Board Member
Ms K Snook –Board Member

Support Persons
[Withheld]
[Withheld]
[Withheld]

Whatarangi Rawiri appeared before the Board today on her first parole eligibility date, or in advance of that date which is 20 September.  She is serving a life sentence for murder and a sentence of six years for aggravated robbery and four years for attempted aggravated robbery concurrently. 
 
She had previously applied under section 25 in both July and November 2010 and at that stage those applications were declined.  Ms Rawiri is clear and understands that her release on parole will be considered by the Extended Board because of the sentence she is serving at the next Extended Board hearing which is set for November in Auckland.

We have discussed with Ms Rawiri the contents of the parole assessment report and the psychological report.  Both those reports are positive overall, though Ms Rawiri tells us she has not regained the [Withheld] Units after being moved out of them because of matters that are addressed in the report.

As is apparent, she has done a number of programmes whilst she has been in prison and significantly has been incident free since 2007.  She is now, she tells us, focused on hoping to be released and furthering her ambition of running a catering business and to that end she is taking advantage of all the training that she can receive whilst working in the Prison.

The psychological report assesses her as at low risk of reoffending and acknowledges the significant gains she has made over the years in custody.  Ms Rawiri herself told us that she feels she has now come to the point where she has done her best to address the causes of her offending.  She has come to an understanding of what course she must take in the future to both set herself on the right course in life but also give back to the community.  She is keen to seek forgiveness from the victims who are, of course, the parents of Michael Choy who died in 2001, as the result of her crime.  We told Ms Rawiri that we have met Mr and Mrs [Withheld] this morning before this hearing and we related to her their views which, in many ways, coincide with hers.  They have told us that they were anxious that she not be released until there was a firm support and plan for her in the community, that there was work arranged and that she understand that she needs to give back to the community and make amends in the future.  That was the strong message we received from Mr and Mrs [Withheld] who also told us they did not, at this stage, wish to meet in a restorative justice context.

Ms Rawiri understands their views and repeatedly expressed to us her remorse and her sorrow about what she had done. 

We discussed with Ms Rawiri the consideration that the Extended Board would be giving to a release plan and an important part of that would be suitable accommodation and support.  The proposed address with [Withheld] in [Withheld] was discussed, both with Ms Rawiri and [Withheld] herself, who came to support the prisoner today.  Also in support were Ms Rawiri’s [Withheld], [Withheld], and [Withheld].  We had a good conversation with all three of those people.  [Withheld] addressed us emotionally about [Withheld] position and also in answer to questions from the Board about her other [Withheld], who has not completed her sentence.  [Withheld] was a co-offender.  We heard that [Withheld] is living in the [Withheld] area and has recently become involved in the voluntary work that [Withheld] does for the [Withheld] Church.  We heard of the close family and local connections between [Withheld] and her family and, indeed, the [Withheld] family in the past.

[Withheld] impressed us as a very energetic 78 year old who, from her life work and experience, would be an impressive support person for Ms Rawiri.  She has had a long association with the family but also with other organisations in the [Withheld] area. 

[Withheld] addressed us about his work with the [Withheld] Church in [Withheld] and the houses that the church has been able to make available to prisoners as a development of the work that he and his parishioners are doing with women in this Prison.  These transition houses are available in the [Withheld] area and he told us that at present there were two women on parole in this accommodation and connections with a further seven who have now left custody.  He told us in no uncertain terms that he knows that for Ms Rawiri life when she leaves prison will not be easy and again, he impressed us with his commitment and realistic assessment of the difficulties that face prisoners, particularly young people who have spent many years in prison for serious matters.

Before the Extended Board in November, we recommend that Ms Rawiri now obtain releases to go shopping and be considered for release to work.  The Senior Prison Officer who attended the hearing confirmed to us that this would indeed be considered if the Board recommended it.  Ms Rawiri has, of course, already been in the [Withheld] Units for some period before moving out of them.  She is now back there again and therefore has attained a track record, as it were.  We also heard from this particular Prison Officer who has known the prisoner throughout her time in custody, of the positive steps that have been made, particularly in recent years.

We would also ask for an updated parole assessment report and in particular a focus on the accommodation that might be available on release.  [Withheld] address has already been assessed but we suggest that it may be appropriate for the accommodation available through [Withheld] at the house in [Withheld] to also be assessed.  We have made clear to Ms Rawiri that she needs to give careful thought to those aspects of her release plan before the next Board meeting.

Finally, although [Withheld] accommodation has been assessed and she has been interviewed, we ask that there be another interview [Withheld] since she has told us today that some aspects of the information she gave for the previous report have now changed.  In particular, Ms Rawiri’s sister [Withheld], who was mentioned as someone about whom [Withheld] would now have a different view, we think it important that this information be before the Extended Board.

Judge A Kiernan
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.