POPO - Andrew - 20/05/2015
Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002
Hearing: 20 May 2015 at (withheld)
Members of the Board:
Judge A Tompkins
Ms G Hughes
Mr M Christensen
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1. Andrew Popo appears before the Parole Board for consideration of parole. On 28 May 2009 he was sentenced to eight years nine months’ imprisonment following conviction for manslaughter and related offending.
2. The manslaughter occurred after Mr Popo had embarked on an extended period of first assaulting another driver and then setting out to evade apprehension. Sergeant Wootton of the New Zealand Police was one of the police officers who were directed to endeavour to stop the car Mr Popo was driving, as were a number of other vehicle borne and other police units and personnel. Sergeant Wootton left another incident he was attending to deploy police road spikes. Mr Popo approached the area where Sergeant Wootton was in the process of deploying those road spikes, struck Sergeant Wootton at speed killing him instantly.
3. Mr Popo drove on for an additional kilometre or so before the deflation of his tyres by the road spikes prevented him from driving further and then endeavoured to flee on foot.
4. Mr Popo declined to participate in the preparation of the parole assessment report for today’s parole hearing. That report did however note that in mid 2014 Mr Popo transferred to (withheld) to undertake the DTU and although he found it at times difficult and challenging he successfully completed that programme in February of this year.
5. He has since transferred back to (withheld) where he is waitlisted to attend the MIRP either in (withheld) or elsewhere. That is clearly an appropriate next rehabilitative step for Mr Popo to take.
6. Mr Popo also declined to proffer a suggested address for parole purposes so accordingly Probation have not been able to assess any address where Mr Popo might go on parole.
7. In those circumstances Mr Popo was not actively seeking parole and he says to the Board that he will prepare a release proposal including a proposed address to put before his next Parole Board appearance.
8. Given the seriousness of his offending and Mr Popo’s somewhat hesitant progression through his sentence it is appropriate that the Board note that given the time he has already spent in prison an extended reintegration period when Mr Popo undertakes (if available to him) graduated and supervised reintegration preparation would be appropriate.
9. However, Mr Popo is aware that no promises have been given to him as to the outcome of any future Parole Board appearance prior to his statutory release and sentence end date of 12 April 2017.
10. In all of those circumstances parole is declined.
Judge A Tompkins