skip to content Goto Site Search List of available accesskeys Goto Homepage - New Zealand Parole Board

TUPE - Darnell Kere - 10/05/2013

TUPE - Darnell Kere 10 May 2013 

Parole hearing

Under Section 21 (1) of the Parole Act 2002

 

Darnell Kere TUPE
Hearing
10 May 2013 at (withheld)

Members of the Board
Alan Ritchie - Panel Convenor
Ms R Pritchard
Mr T Burns 

Decision of the Board

 

1.                  The Board has considered an application for the recall of Darnell Kere Tupe from parole to continue serving his sentence of 12 years for manslaughter and aggravated robbery.

2.                  Mr Tupe was released on parole on 23 April 2012, with conditions continuing for six months beyond his sentence expiry date of 14 December 2013. 

3.                  The application was made by Probation Officer (withheld), who attended for the Department, along with (withheld) as counsel.  Mr Tupe was represented by (withheld). 

4.                  The grounds set out in the application are that Mr Tupe has breached his conditions, committed an offence punishable by imprisonment and is an undue risk to community safety.

5.                  In his affidavit in support, (withheld) deposed that Mr Tupe had assaulted his sister and had also driven while disqualified. 

6.                  Mr Tupe pleaded guilty at an early stage to the disqualified driving charge.

7.                  In submissions from (withheld), we learn that on 29 April 2013, after extensive discussions with the prosecution, the original charge of injuring with intent to injure was amended to one of male assaults female. 

8.                  Subsequently an agreed proposed sentencing tariff was advanced to the District Court and the Court has advised that it accepted a sentence indication of five months on a cumulative basis.  Counsel advises that the sentence will be imposed by the Court after a final recall order is made.  She says that under the Sentencing Act 2002, the Court cannot order a cumulative sentence of imprisonment until such a final recall order is made.

9.                  (withheld) further advised that with a sentence expiry date of 14 December 2013 and the fact that Community Probation have made initial enquiries about a (withheld) address and reintegration plan in that area, with a positive conclusion, that Mr Tupe should be brought back before the Board in June 2013 for parole to be considered.

10.              In response to those submissions, (withheld) advised that the Crown did not oppose an adjournment of that type, though he pointed to what he described as the more accurate position of the Crown not opposing fresh consideration of parole in June 2013 but that it was a matter for the Board, once there had been a recalculation of Mr Tupe’s sentence end date, after he had been sentenced to prison on the outstanding charges.  Mr Rowe’s submission was that the timing of the consideration of the release on parole was entirely a matter for the Board and the Department did not wish to be heard on it.

11.              We acknowledge these points.

12.              The first step for us is whether, even in the light of (withheld) submissions, we should be making the recall order final.  We are aware of our discretion in that regard.  We have concluded in this case, given the nature of the further offending, that we should in fact be exercising our discretion in favour of recall and we make the order accordingly.  Our primary consideration has been community safety.

13.              Ordinarily we would not be seeing Mr Tupe for consideration of parole otherwise than in accordance with the Board’s three month policy, but given the submissions made to us by (withheld), (withheld) and the efforts made by (withheld) for Community Probation, we are making an exception on this occasion and Mr Tupe will be seen in June 2013.

14.              We do not think there will be any relevant effect on Mr Tupe’s parole eligibility date given or the provisions relating to notional single sentence in the Parole Act 2002.

15.              In this case we have heard from (withheld) that there are very positive factors about the (withheld) proposals. However, there are by no means any assurances within this decision that parole will be granted or even be a realistic prospect for the Board at that next hearing. The Board will be taking account of any alteration to the sentence expiry date.

Alan Ritchie
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.