New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(1) of the Parole Act 2002

Matakaua Ngaruaine ROUVI

Hearing: 14 January 2021

at Spring Hill Corrections Facility via AVL to NZPB Office Wellington

Members of the Board: Sir Ron Young – Chairperson

Dr J Skipworth

Dr G Coyle

Ms K Coutts

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Mr Rouvi who is 62 years of age was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 2009.  He did have some previous convictions very early, indecent assault and then three excess breath alcohol convictions.  Those alcohol convictions also reinforce concern about his use of alcohol at the time of the killing.
2. This was Mr Rouvi’s first appearance before the Board.  As far as the facts are concerned, he killed his then partner.  He had been married for some 25 years but left his wife and began a relationship with a much younger woman.  Their relationship was of approximately five years’ duration.  There was one child. Mr Rouvi and his partner argued, and she shifted out.  She returned to his house one day; Mr Rouvi had been drinking.  A daughter and son from his previous marriage were present.  He then went to his car, picked up two knives and stabbed the victim to death in the presence of those children.
3. He is assessed as being low risk of reoffending. He has completed the Saili Matamgi and DTP programmes. He did well on both although some concern was expressed about what he had learnt on the DTP. He was also assessed at being moderate to low level of re-integrative need.  He has a good work ethic and skills.
4. We spent some time discussing with Mr Rouvi his offending, safety plan, his high risks and his reintegration plan.
5. Mr Rouvi does have limited depth of understanding of his risks.  He is, however, clear that he needs to stop drinking alcohol, which was obviously an important factor, both in his past offending and in the index offending.
6. Mr Rouvi had a number of plans for his reintegration which did not seem to quite fit with the known circumstances.  The plan for Mr Rouvi is for him to be released to (withheld) in the (withheld).  The murder occurred in Dunedin and there are victim related reasons why a release to Dunedin would not be possible.
7. In discussions with us however Mr Rouvi suggested that he wanted to return to live with (withheld) and that he wanted to take up employment. Neither of those situations seem reasonably likely.  Firstly, (withheld) live in Australia; while it seems he has had some contact with them by phone, it has apparently been erratic and the last time he talked to (withheld) was last year.
8. As to his employment, the employer that he wanted to resume employment with was in Dunedin and so given a likely prohibition against him returning to Dunedin, that that was not possible.
9. Unfortunately, he has very little support in (withheld).  We think the way forward, therefore, is now as follows.
10. Firstly, he needs to undertake the one-on-one counselling with a psychologist to improve his safety plan.  We think it may also be useful for the psychologist to work with Mr Rouvi to help him further understand his high-risk situations and how we might deal with them in the community.
11. Secondly, (withheld) need to provide us with a specific date and address for a possible release.  We need a specific date and place for release before we make any decision about release as they will understand from their past dealings with the Board.
12. Thirdly, we think it vital that Mr Rouvi develop his community contacts.  He indicated that he was interested in resuming contact with a church that he said many Cook Islanders attended but when we questioned him, it became apparent that that church is in Dunedin. Again, that is not an option.  But there will no doubt be churches in the (withheld) area, perhaps in (withheld) that members of the Cook Island community favour and so we ask his Case Manager to identify who that might usefully be and arrange for perhaps some Guided Releases to the church and for him to invite members of the Cook Island Church to visit Mr Rouvi in prison to try and develop relationships .
13. There may well be other Pacific communities in (withheld) and we invite the Case Manager to also try to arrange contact between them and Mr Rouvi.
14. Mr Rouvi is obviously interested in employment and has a good record of employment within the prison.  Again, it would be positive for him to try and do what Corrections can to arrange employment in the community for his release.  Again, that will be an important factor in his reintegration.
15. Mr Rouvi in the meantime remains an undue risk.  We will see him again by the end of May 2021.