Akustino TAE 10/10/2024

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Akustino TAE

Hearing: 10 October 2024

at [withheld]

Members of the Board:

Sir Ron Young – Chairperson

Dr J Skipworth

Mr C King

Counsel:  Ms R Sommers

In Attendance: 

[withheld] - Case Manager

[withheld] – Principal Case Manager

[withheld] – Probation Officer

Support Persons: [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

  1. Mr Tae is 45 years of age and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Prior to that conviction he had five pages of previous convictions including convictions for serious violence being imprisoned on a number of occasions as well as property offending. His sentence commencement date was May 2020, his sentence end date April 2026.
  2. Mr Tae was a member of the Tribesmen gang, Mr Masters a senior member of Killer Beez. Mr Masters took a motorbike for a test run, when he returned Mr Tae was at the service entrance. Mr Tae produced a black semi-automatic 9 mm pistol fired a shot at Mr Masters which lodged in his spinal cord.  A second bullet was automatically loaded into the pistol’s chamber.  Mr Tae failed to notice that and attempted to manually reload.  He then moved toward Mr Masters, pulled the trigger twice but the pistol failed to fire because it was jammed.  He pulled the trigger a second time but at that stage there were no remaining bullets in the pistol.  [withheld].
  3. The Parole Board last saw Mr Tae in a substantive way in May 2024. The Board noted that to the end of January 2024 Mr Tae had completed 36 sessions with a psychologist and that was in effect all the rehabilitation required to address his risk. The Board took the view that it was important for Mr Tae to do reintegrative testing given his history of poor compliance with court orders. There was a possibility of a transfer to [withheld] Prison for reintegrative testing with difficulties undertaking reintegrative testing at [withheld] Prison where Mr Tae resided.
  4. [withheld].  The Parole Board refused Mr Tae parole. It emphasised the importance of reintegrative testing. [withheld].
  5. Today, Mr Tae again sought release to [withheld].  [withheld] apparently had rented a house specifically for Mr Tae’s occupancy.  Mr [withheld] who we understand is in charge of several houses the [withheld] provides in [withheld] would also live at the house which is a two-bedroom house.  The [withheld] say they have put together a comprehensive release plan for Mr Tae including rehabilitation programme and reintegration programmes.  Mr [withheld] said that he had assisted Mr Tae in surrendering his gang patch and that he was no longer involved in gangs.
  6. At the hearing we discovered that part of the background information provided by Corrections to the Board included information from phone monitoring and other background information had not been provided in full to either Mr Tae or counsel. So we arranged for the information to be provided and then the panel stood down to enable Mr Tae and counsel to read the information and to make a decision as to whether they wished to proceed with the hearing today or not. When we returned to the Parole Board room Mr Tae indicated he wanted to proceed with the hearing today and the Board continued to hear submissions and question Mr Tae.
  7. The main focus of the discussion between Mr Tae, Mr [withheld], counsel and the Board related to whether it was a safe release for Mr Tae to be released to the [withheld] accommodation in [withheld].
  8. [withheld].
  9. [withheld].
  10. [withheld] also made the point that while Mr [withheld] said he would be living with Mr Tae he also had managerial obligations to [withheld] and the other occupants of the other addresses. [withheld].
  11. Our view is that it would not be safe to release Mr Tae to reside at [withheld]. We do not see that [withheld] provides a safe release for Mr Tae. We consider that given [withheld] is a relatively small town and it will be soon known where Mr Tae is living that will likely create a potentially serious risk for him and as a result a risk for the wider community. [withheld].
  12. In those circumstances before we could safely release Mr Tae to any address in any community, we need to better understand what risks there are to him and therefore the community he lives in and how those risks might be mitigated for any release. We repeat, however, that we do not see that a release to [withheld] provides any more reassurance than a release to [withheld]. [withheld]. In those circumstances it is difficult to see what value a release to [withheld] provides as against a release to [withheld].  We therefore do not support a release to [withheld].
  13. We will see Mr Tae again by the end of April 2025. In the meantime, we ask [withheld] to contact the Police Gang Liaison in [withheld] and ask them to provide their assessment of risk with respect to Mr Tae [withheld]. In the meantime, Mr Tae remains an undue risk, not having suitable accommodation.

Sir Ron Young

Chairperson