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

HAUWAI - Hendrix - 20/04/2017

Parole Hearing
Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Hendrix HAUWAI

Hearing: 20 April 2017 at [withheld]

Members of the Board:

  • Judge J P Gittos QSO - Panel Convenor
  • Ms G Hughes
  • Ms W Taumaunu

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Hendrix Hauwai is a 20 year old man serving a sentence of four years and nine months imposed upon him for offences of wounding with intent, assault with intent to rob, assault with intent to injure and robbery.

2. The index offences involved a series of street robberies of women who were targeted by Mr Hauwai evidently for their vulnerability.  In some of these incidents the victims were violently attacked and suffered injuries and in one case very serious injuries including a skull fracture, the victim having been subjected to a sustained and very violent attack by the prisoner after she had been knocked to the ground.

3. Apart from the index offences he has two convictions in the Youth Court, one for theft and one for aggravated robbery.  When he was last before the Board it was noted that he was then too young for the [withheld] programme and was identified for a [withheld] programme but nothing significant at that stage had been done in the way of his rehabilitation.  At this point he has now started the [withheld] and is two months into that programme.  His sentence plan includes him progressing to the [withheld] programme also.

4. This young man presents a very worrying profile and we think it imperative that he be seen by the psychologist and assessed at some length in order to ensure the programmes which are in his sentence plan are going to be effective for him.

5. Mr Hauwai in his discourse with the Board was initially reticent but as the interview progressed, gave quite a good account of himself.  He was unable to give any rationale for his offending.  It does not appear to have been drug related and while the motivation for the robberies may perhaps be evident enough, the gratuitous violence is difficult to understand and that needs, we think, to be the focus of a probing inquiry by the psychologist.

6. With those thoughts in mind we are satisfied that parole today would be manifestly premature and parole is declined but we would like to see Mr Hauwai again sooner rather than later so that he can be assessed in the light of the psychologist’s assessment and report.  We will see him again in six months’ time, that is to say before the end of October 2017.

Judge J P Gittos QSO
Panel Convenor