New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Richard Robert TRANTER

Hearing: 16 February 2023

at Christchurch Men’s Prison by Ms Teams

Members of the Board:

Ms M More – Panel Convenor

Ms S Davis

Mr A Hackney

Dr J Ioane

Counsel: Ms Trinder

In Attendance:  [withheld] – Case Manager

Support Persons: [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Richard Robert Tranter is 31. He makes his third appearance before the Board on a sentence of eight years three months for manslaughter (other means) and driving with excess breath alcohol.  Mr Tranter elected trial by jury. He was driving in Christchurch, in a vehicle that was unregistered and unwarranted, had incorrect tyres and worn brake pads.  Mr Tranter ignored a brake warning light on the vehicle. He had deactivated the brake instability control.  Mr Tranter was driving between 178 kilometres per hour and 186 kilometres per hour; he was videoing it at the same time and recording a commentary.  He said that he was doing 180 kilometres per hour.
2. Mr Tranter undertook two vehicles. In his commentary he said he does not give a “f***” in the world.  He did not slow down when he reached a 60 kilometre per hour area. He collided with the victim and another car, and he spun out of control.  The victim died in hospital the next day.  When tested, Mr Tranter’s excess blood alcohol was 112 milligrams to 100 millilitres of blood.
3. While on bail Mr Tranter removed his bracelet and absconded.
4. Mr Tranter has significant offending history.  It includes but is not limited to driving‑related offending, drug-related offending, weapon-related offending, and 18 convictions for non‑compliance.  Those convictions are breaches of bail, non‑compliance of community-based sentences, non‑compliance with protection orders and release conditions.
5. Mr Tranter has a RoC*RoI of .65394.  His statutory release date is 17 April 2027.  He has four years and two months remaining on his sentence.
6. Mr Tranter’s classification is minimum, and he is on the Victim Notification Register.
7. Mr Tranter’s behaviour has deteriorated, he has been removed from the Leimon Villas and the [withheld] on 5 November 2022 [withheld].
8. The Parole Assessment Report (PAR) said he is struggling to follow basic rules.  The report notes his previous poor compliance in the community.
9. Mr Tranter has completed the Medium Intensity Rehabilitation Programme (MIRP) in February 2021 and the Dependency Treatment Programme (DTP) in September 2021.
10. Mr Tranter is represented by counsel, Mr Lucas. Ms Trinder appeared on instructions.  Counsel submitted that Mr Tranter could be released to [withheld] and said that he is on a reintegration pathway.  Counsel addressed the compliance issues the PAR raises.  [withheld].
11. As far as the struggling to follow basic rules allegation goes, it is disputed.  Mr Tranter has requested his file notes.  [withheld].
12. [withheld].
13. Mr Tranter’s PCO said that he was compliant, but he tends to deflect and play things down, rather than accept and take responsibility for his behaviour.  The PCO said he would not return to the villas until there had been a significant period of compliance.  [withheld].
14. Mr Tranter was at pains to explain to the Board that he has had long periods of compliance, including two years outside the wire wearing an electronically monitored bracelet.  He was concerned that the Board needed to understand that this rule‑breaking is not a big deal, and he does not know what happened.
15. We questioned Mr Tranter about his offending.  He attributes it to substance use and struggled to acknowledge the concerns around the unregistered unwarranted car.
16. Mr Tranter’s case manager said that he would require a good period of compliance with no involvement in incidents in the unit before he can return to the villas.  His case manager acknowledged he has completed his rehabilitation, and a recent application to the panel for release to work has been declined due to the recent incidents.
17. Before the hearing today we met with the parents of Mr Tranter’s victim.  We passed on the message to Mr Tranter that his offending has resulted in an enormous cost to their lives, and they do not support early release.  Mr Tranter has caused enormous emotional damage to the family and the family is broken.
18. The victims said it is time Mr Tranter took responsibility and suffered the consequences of his actions.  They said his actions were deliberate.
19. Mr Tranter responded appropriately to the victims’ concerns.  He said that he does not disagree with what they say; that he understands their position and he regrets his actions.  He said he is constantly reminded of what he has done.
20. [withheld]
21. The Board is concerned that Mr Tranter struggles to accept responsibility for the causes of his offending, and for the current situation he finds himself in with non-compliance issues and being exited from the Leimon Villas.  The Board sees some of this rule‑breaking as offence mirroring behaviour in terms of his offending, and we note his considerable offending history of non‑compliance with community-based detention and protection order.
22. We are not satisfied that Mr Tranter has undertaken sufficient reintegration to address our concerns.  Without that his risk is undue and parole is declined.  We considered the release proposal to [withheld].  While we acknowledge the value of the [withheld], Mr Tranter’s history of non-compliance in the community, and his recent non-compliance in prison, do not give us any confidence he will comply with his release conditions and/or the [withheld] rules.
23. Given the long period he had demonstrated compliance before he fell over, we consider he needs a further long period to demonstrate that if released into the community he would not be an undue risk.  We will see Mr Tranter again in 13 months.
24. When we spoke to the victims about a proposed exclusion zone if and when Mr Tranter is released. [withheld]
25. We will see Mr Tranter again in March 2024.