New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Shane KAREPA

• Hearing: 21 September 2016 at  Withheld]

Members of the Board:

• Hon. JW Gendall QC – Panel Convenor
• Mr L Tawera
• Dr J Skipworth

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Shane Karepa (aka MACIANA - Antonio Monini)  is serving a life sentence imposed on 13 April 1989 for murder.  His parole eligibility date was 12 July 1998.  He was released on parole in March 2001 and recalled by final order on 9 March 2016.  Accordingly he has been back in prison for about six months.

2. His performance on parole was such that he was in our view fortunate not to have been recalled very much earlier than was the case.  He incurred six convictions between 2003 and 2009 which included refusing to provide a blood sample (he acknowledged he was intoxicated) two of assaulting the police. He had on many occasions failed to comply with his conditions and engage in a positive way with his Probation Officer.  His recall came about because of the cumulative effect of his failure to engage honestly with his Probation Officer, refusal to abide by standard conditions, and adopting transient lifestyle.  His attitude towards parole and its conditions was at best cavalier. That has been reinforced to us in response to Board questions.

3. He suffered [Withheld]  in early April 2016 so was not able then to advance any release plan.  It is now proposed that he enter into [Withheld] supported accommodation in [Withheld].  He says he has the support of a friend, [Withheld]. He clarified today that he had been [Withheld]  between 2001 and 2005, although from the information before us it would have been a little longer.  However there was material in the affidavit in support of the recall application which indicated there were concerns for domestic violence in that relationship which led to police call-outs in 2004 and 2006.

4. Mr Karepa’s very poor response over an extended period whilst on parole, and his attitude and answers to the Board’s questions leave us with no confidence at all that he  could presently be safely managed in the community for the remainder of his life sentence.  He appears to adopt an attitude that he has rehabilitated himself, is no longer a gang member, and will comply with the parole conditions if it suits him.

5. The ground for his recall in March 2016 was that he was an undue risk to the safety of the community. That remains the case 6 months later.  It is necessary that he undergo one-to-one assessment and if necessary counselling or other treatment in order that his undue risk can be treated and managed.  He is not able to satisfy us that he meets the statutory criteria for release on parole.  It is declined.  He will be seen again in the month of August 2017, that is before 31 August at the latest.

Hon. JW Gendall QC
Panel Convenor