New Zealand Parole Board -

Parole Hearing

Under section 21(2) of the Parole Act 2002

Matakaua Ngaruaine ROUVI

Hearing: 13 February 2024

at Auckland South Corrections Facility

Members of the Board:

Mr N Trendle – Panel Convenor

Dr J Skipworth

Ms M Kleist

Counsel: Ms J Thompson

In Attendance: [withheld] - Case Manager

Support Persons: [withheld]

DECISION OF THE BOARD

1. Matakaua Ngaruaine Rouvi was sentenced to life imprisonment on 30 July 2009 for the murder of [withheld].  He was released on parole on 29 May 2023.  When he appeared before the Board for a monitoring hearing in October, an order having the effect of an interim recall order was made owing to the Board’s concern with his actions and [withheld]. A final recall order was made on 28 November 2023.
2. In November, Mr Rouvi was admitted to [withheld] and the most significant issues appeared to have been resolved.  At the recall hearing the Board was not, however, satisfied that sufficient support was in place over the holiday period for him to return to the community.  Since then, Mr Rouvi has remained in prison.  He holds a minimum-security classification [withheld].
3. Mr Rouvi was represented by his counsel, Ms Thompson, who made submissions in support of his return to [withheld] where Mr Rouvi had been living prior to his return to prison.  She referred to his low risk of re-offending, that he had been adequately managed [withheld] and that on release he would have the added support to assist him [withheld].  In that regard, [withheld] from [withheld] attended the hearing and outlined the support that would be available to Mr Rouvi in the community.  He would meet weekly with Mr Rouvi to assist with any [withheld].  Additionally, a social worker would be available to assist him with other needs.  A NASC assessment would also be initiated if the [withheld] support was not deemed sufficient.
4. The Board reflected on the submissions made by Ms Thompson.  We have not however been able to reach the view that Mr Rouvi should be released on the proposals before us. Firstly, we note that [withheld] appeared to deteriorate while he was staying at the [withheld].  [withheld].  Secondly, we note that he has maintained [withheld].  [withheld].  That issue requires resolution before he leaves prison.  [withheld]. Thirdly, the Board would also be assisted by a NASC assessment which will identify his needs on release and will enable an assessment to be made as to whether the [withheld] proposal sufficiently meets those needs.  Mr Rouvi also appeared to us to be somewhat vulnerable to transition to a relatively unstructured release environment.
5. Before the Board next considers Mr Rouvi for parole, we request his case manager to facilitate a multidisciplinary team meeting that should involve [withheld], [withheld], [withheld], [withheld] and his Probation Officer.
6. We will schedule Mr Rouvi to return to the Board in four months, by 30 June 2024.  We request his case manager to initiate as a matter of urgency a [withheld] together with the NASC assessment.  The Board would be assisted by the notes of the outcome of the multidisciplinary team meeting referred to.