New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Wayne Moewaka NAMANA

Hearing: Wednesday 16 October 2019

at Rimutaka Prison

Members of the Board:

• Judge D Mather (Panel Convenor)
• Ms G Hughes
• Mr J Thomson

Support Persons:                            

• [withheld]
• [withheld]
• [withheld]

Counsel:                                          

• Mr S McColgan

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Mr Namana appears before the Board for the first time for consideration of parole.  At the outset, through counsel, he indicated he was seeking release on parole at this hearing.
2. He was convicted following guilty pleas, on a number of charges, some representative, of supplying and possessing for supply of methamphetamine.  There is also a conviction for participating in an organised criminal group and dealing in cannabis.
3. He has a low RoC*Rol of 0.25726.  That no doubt reflects his age and criminal history going back to 1975, but relatively low level of offending until 1998.  He has served two prison sentences, one of six months in 1998 and one of two years two months in 2014.  He has no previous convictions for drug offending.
4. The Judge’s sentencing notes make it clear that Mr Namana was a senior member of a drug dealing group involved in widespread supply and distribution of methamphetamine through Wairarapa.  He is described as the patriarch.
5. He was at pains to emphasise to us that he was not and had never been a gang member.  What is apparent however, from the Judge’s sentencing notes and the pre‑sentence report, as well as the parole assessment report, is that Mr Namana has been associating with gang members, including through his own family members and we take the view that there must have been a gang context within which this significant drug dealing operation took place.
6. Mr Namana apparently regrets his offending and wants to again become positively involved in his community.  It is apparent from the cultural report provided at his sentencing, with a copy made available to us, as well as what was said by him and his supporters at this hearing, that he is very well connected within the Wairarapa māori community.  He may well have a lot to offer them.
7. However, we consider that he should address his offending in an effective way before he is released on parole.  He has the Te Tirohanga Programme on his sentence plan, or alternatively, the Medium Intensity Rehabilitation Programme [MIRP].  He will need an override to be accepted into those programmes and we support that occurring.
8. If he is not released on parole he would like to transfer to the Māori focus unit which is entirely appropriate and understandable.  In that unit he will be able to engage in the Te Tirohanga Programme which we support.
9. He has significant community support as evidenced by the attendance at this hearing of [withheld].
10. His proposed release address is [withheld].  [withheld] confirmed that forfeiture proceedings are still unresolved but she is confident that the home is secure and will be available for Mr Namana’s release in due course.
11. For the above reasons we are not satisfied that Mr Namana does not presently pose an undue risk to the safety of the community if released on parole and accordingly parole is declined.  We scheduled his next appearance before the Board in 12 months’ time in October 2020, no later than 31 October.