TUPE, Darnell Kere - 18/01/2012
Parole hearing
Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002
Darnell Kere TUPE
Hearing:
18 January 2012
At (Withheld) Prison
Members of the Board:
Judge B Lovegrove
Mr A Ritchie
Ms S Pakura
DECISION OF THE BOARD
Mr Tupe appears for further consideration of parole having been sufficient process of reintegration. The declining Board envisaged more temporary leaves and movement beyond the wire and scheduled a further hearing date today to review progress. He is serving a sentence of 12 years imprisonment for manslaughter and lesser concurrent terms for aggravated robbery. His statutory release date is 14 December 2013. He cannot be released before that date unless the Board has reasonable grounds to be satisfied he poses no undue risk to the safety of the community within the roughly 1 year 11 months remaining on his sentence having regard to the nature of any likely further offending, any support and supervision available in the community, and the virtue of him getting back into the community as a law-abiding citizen.
Mr Tupe, at 32 years of age, is in prison for the second time on this occasion for his part as driver in the infamous RSA aggravated robbery which resulted in the violent deaths of 3 people at the hands of William Bell on 8 December 2001 following other offending going back over the period to 1997 centred round burglary, irresponsible driving, and possessing an offensive weapon. Unless the Board is persuaded he understands what brought him to such offending, and also understands the seriousness of his offending and the extent to which it will not be tolerated by a community entitled to protect itself, and unless he takes effective steps to deal with that or shows how he intends to do so safely in the future, there is good reason to suppose he will offend again n familiar ways.
Against that background, Mr Tupe has spent the past 10 years 1 month or so in prison affording some small measure of justice to his victims and absorbing the consequences of his offending. He is Minimum Security. He is well behaved in the structured prison environment. He keeps himself busy.
Clinical psychologist (Withheld), in his last psychological assessment report, puts Mr Tupe at moderate risk of reoffending which may well have him pose an undue risk to the safety of the community for so long as his offending issues centred round violence, substance abuse, choice of peers, and entrenched antisocial attitudes are insufficiently addressed without effective intervention either in prison or, under suitable stringency, in the community. Earlier on sentence, the nature of his offending and the pre-eminent need to address his offending issues counted against community-based intervention. In terms of prison-based intervention, his sentence-plan included the Maori Therapeutic Programme [MTP] and the Medium Intensity Rehabilitation Programme [MIRP] and, to his credit, he has satisfactorily completed both programmes together with follow-up maintenance. He will receive no further intervention in prison. Any further intervention must be forthcoming in the community. He has been moved cautiously through a testing process of reintegration. He spent some time in Self Care before returning to mainstream for the unauthorised possession of a cell-phone. He has been on Release to Work. He has continued with temporary leaves and overnight stays with (Withheld) who offers him an approved address suitable for residential restrictions. He has a good prospect of work at (Withheld).
While Mr Tupe is facing an internal charge for his indiscretion with a cellphone, the Board will not proceed with any notion of release while that charge remains unresolved. Accordingly, the Board cannot yet be satisfied he poses no undue risk to the safety of the community and parole must be declined. He will be seen again in April 2012. The Board urges him to have (Withheld) attend that hearing as he is an integral part of his release proposal.
Judge B Lovegrove
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.