New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Tuaine Llewellyn BEVAN

Hearing: 19 May 2016 At [Withheld]  via AVL to Wellington NZBP Office

Members of the Board:
Judge D Mather – Panel Convenor
Dr S Davis
Mr B McMurray

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Mr Bevan is serving a sentence of six years and eight months.  He was convicted of manslaughter as a result of him shooting his partner.  He received a cumulative sentence of one year for possessing cannabis for supply.

2. He has a concerning offending history.  He was on parole at the time he committed the latest offences, having recently been released from a sentence of three years and six months for injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.  We note an earlier conviction for aggravated robbery.

3. Mr Bevan maintains his resistance to undertaking any group programme.  He has already turned down the DTU and told us again today he is not willing to do that programme.  The reason seems to be concerns about confidentiality of what is disclosed in those programmes.

4. He completed the VPU (STURP) programme [Withheld]  in 2010.  His SCO thought the MIRP might also be on his sentence plan, although it does not appear so from the recent parole assessment report, and we would be surprised if that were so given his previous engagement in the VPU.

5. There is a recent psychological report.  It recommends one to one psychological counselling which Mr Bevan is prepared to undertake.  It also indicates he would benefit from the DTU and we note that drugs and alcohol have been a significant factor in his offending history.

6. The psychologist assesses his risk of reoffending violently at moderate.  Given his reoffending, which involved a loss of life relatively soon after release from a previous sentence imposed for violent offending, considerable caution must be exercised in terms of risk.  At present we are not satisfied that undue risk would not be present if Mr Bevan were released with nearly two and a half years left on his sentence.

7. He has an address with [Withheld]  which appears satisfactory.  However, we note that the psychologist considers more work needs to be done by Mr Bevan to develop a comprehensive release plan, which he does not presently have.

8. Mr Bevan’s behaviour in prison has been patchy.  We note he had IDU ratings until late 2015 and there are a number of misconducts.  All of this adds to concerns as to risk.

9. Clearly parole must be declined at this stage.  In our view Mr Bevan needs to accept the need to undertake significant rehabilitation work before he can be considered ready for release on parole.  He has a sentence plan and it is his choice as to whether he agrees to undertake that or not.

10. We schedule him to reappear before the Board on or before 30 April 2018.  If he makes significant progress with his rehabilitation work and has a good release plan prior to that date he has the option of applying under section 26 of the Parole Act 2002 for an earlier hearing before the Board.

Judge D Mather
Panel Convenor