New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Luke Bradley SAVIGNY

Hearing: 3 April 2024

at Otago Corrections Facility via MS Teams

Members of the Board:

Ms S Bailey – Panel Convenor

Ms K Coutts

Judge D Mather

Counsel: Sarah Saunderson-Warner

In Attendance: [withheld] - Case Manager

Support people: [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Luke Savigny appears for a further consideration of parole. Mr Savigny is serving a sentence of five years and seven months imprisonment after a conviction was entered to manslaughter. The offending resulted from a dangerous driving incident which resulted from a high-speed police chase and then a crash which killed his passenger, one of his friends. Mr Savigny acknowledged himself he was driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs at the time.
2. Mr Savigny has a significant list of previous convictions, having started offending during 2012. Those convictions include aggravated robbery, unlawful taking of motor vehicles, dishonesty, sentence breaches and numerous driving convictions.
3. On Mr Savigny’s sentence plan is the DTP which he has completed during October of 2022 and the MIRP which he has also completed during July of 2023.  He has prepared a release prevention and safety plans.
4. Mr Savigny last appeared before a board during January of 2024 when it was considered appropriate for him to look at rehabilitation programmes on release and it was also noted - at an earlier Board hearing - the possibility of residential rehabilitation.
5. Mr Savigny had his lawyer, Ms Saunderson-Warner, present today who made verbal submissions to the Board. She advised the Board that he is seeking parole today. She said that just prior to the last Parole Board hearing he had applied for entry into the [withheld] but that had been declined. She noted that that Board considered further release planning and development of community supports was necessary. She told the Board that Mr Savigny is seeking release to [withheld] address which is an approved one.  She said he was not considering residential rehabilitation at this point.
6. The reason residential rehabilitation had previously been considered was because of his past history of poor non‑compliance in the community.
7. Ms Saunderson-Warner noted that he had completed his programmes and the available care in the community would include [withheld].
8. Ms Saunderson-Warner also noted that he had received an eight-year disqualification on sentencing and questioned the need for a condition not to drive a motor vehicle.
9. Mr Savigny spoke with the Board and stated that the factors that led to his offending were drug use, his lifestyle at the time and his association with what he called “bad influences”.  He said he was now willing to change and has the opportunity to engage in employment on release which would lead to more prosocial contacts.
10. [withheld]
11. When asked what he had learnt from his courses he stated to the Board that he will have to be responsible for his own actions and consequences, that he has a long-term addiction, he needs to be assertive, and he always has options to review decisions. [withheld].
12. Mr Savigny acknowledged that he has been a long-term offender and that much of this was due to drug addiction and poor decision-making.  [withheld]. Mr Savigny said that structure in his days will be important, having employment and keeping busy will be crucial to him reintegrating successfully.  He has work opportunity on release.
13. Mr Savigny was questioned about comments made in his treatment report. The writer had used terms at times indicating he had been “disruptive and impulsive” and he was asked as to why this was so.  He told the Board that, at times, if he got a bit bored, he would be the class clown essentially, or as he termed it, he would “create a distraction”.  When he was asked about how this would work once he was out in the community if similar situations arose, he acknowledged that was a good point and may not be appropriate. He acknowledged that he is easily influenced but believes he has learnt to be assertive.
14. Mr Savigny’s case manager confirmed that there will be community services available on his release and that presently he had not consented to looking into residential rehabilitation.
15. His PCO said that his behaviour has improved over time, he was keeping busy and involved in prison grounds work. His PCO also commented that when Mr Savigny has an audience, he tended to play the class clown.
16. Also present at the hearing was a long-term friend of Mr Savigny who is obviously supportive and said that Mr Savigny appears to have done very well during his time in prison. He also had [withheld] present who is also supportive.
17. His case manager told the Board that Mr Savigny has been considered for Outside the Wire earlier this year, however, had been considered unsuitable because of behaviour matters.  She said that there will be future reintegration opportunities available with respect to Outside the Wire and Release to Work.
18. Parole today is declined. Mr Savigny is still considered an undue risk until he has an opportunity to prove himself outside his current environment. The Board believe it is essential that he has an opportunity to further test himself and consider it appropriate that the prison consider Outside the Wire and Release to Work for Mr Savigny to do so. Any other reintegration activity which is possible is also encouraged. Mr Savigny is encouraged to keep in contact with his current potential community supports and to develop any further supports with the assistance of his case manager.
19. Mr Savigny will be seen again during September 2024 and prior to the end of that month in anticipation that he will have had an opportunity to test himself further.