KEY POINTS:
The Parole Board decided to release convicted murderer Graeme Burton despite knowing he had not gone through gradual "home leave" reintegration as it had requested.
The board said the lack of home leave was disappointing, but still went ahead and granted Burton parole after taking the view that his potential risk to the community was not "undue".
Burton remained in hospital yesterday after surgery to amputate his leg, which was damaged when he was shot by police at the weekend.
He had just gone on a bloody rampage in hills near Wellington, allegedly shooting dead one man and injuring several others.
The case has raised several questions about the Parole Board's decision to free Burton, but yesterday it had little to say in response.
A spokeswoman said none of the six people who made the Burton decision would comment and the chairman, Judge David Carruthers, was not available. He is reviewing files and decisions relating to Burton's release in July last year after 14 years in prison.
Burton was ruled unsafe for release in 2004 because he was regarded as being at a high risk of reoffending.
But by September 2005 his behaviour had improved. While refusing to release Burton, the board in 2005 noted that his conduct in prison over the previous two years had been "impeccable".
Burton had not been involved with drugs and had "no incidents" while in prison, the board said.
Prison officers even noted Burton showed "excellent behaviour in spite of severe provocation", and was able to handle the frustration of being denied temporary outings.
The board said Burton had "insight into his own offending", had done all of the courses available to him and done them well. But it emphasised that Burton needed temporary releases to ensure he had the ability to handle life back in the community.
Six months later, the board assessed Burton again and noted he had taken part in three escorted outings.
But the six-member panel, which was different from the one that had assessed Burton in 2005, felt it could not release him without first seeing an updated psychological assessment, something which hadn't been done for two years.
Subject to that assessment, the board resolved to release Burton on July 10 last year. It hoped he would be given home leave to gradually reintegrate into the community before then.
On June 28 last year the board made the final decision to release Burton, despite the home leave not taking place.
It also said Burton's psychological assessment referred to an "unsubstantiated allegation" for which the board had not received a report.
The incident was not mentioned in a pre-release report from Burton's prison.
"In those circumstances it would be wrong for any board to take such matters into account when assessing risk," the board said.
It was decided that Burton would be released in July and be on parole for life, with several special conditions.
The board asked Burton's probation officer to closely monitor him for any signs of relapse.
These included any use of substances, association with those involved in criminal activity or substance abuse, withdrawal from support people or supervision, persistently negative mood or attitude, compulsive behaviour, financial problems or accommodation instability.
The board has expressed its sympathy to Burton's latest victims and said its main priority was now any court trial following the weekend's events, as well as investigations into the decision to release Burton.
Burton, like any person who suffers an acute injury, is eligible for urgent treatment in a public hospital. Anyone imprisoned is not entitled to any form of compensation from ACC, apart from treatment for their injury.
The Corrections Department said it had a responsibility to ensure all prisoners' health and dietary needs were met, including the specific needs of any prisoners with a disability such as an amputation.
Cells were specifically designed for the needs of disabled prisoners, and their health was closely monitored.
PAROLE CONDITIONS
Conditions of Burton's life parole, which were to remain in place for two years after his release on July 10 last year, were:
* He had to live at a particular address, or one approved by the probation officer.
* For the first month at least, a person whose name has been withheld was to live at the same address.
* Burton could not leave a particular region without written approval from the probation officer.
* He had to undertake employment or employment-related training, but was not allowed to be in the tattoo business without approval.
* He had to undertake a psychological assessment and any treatment recommended as a result of that assessment.
* He had to attend a maintenance group, following on from an already completed programme.
* He had to attend any other counselling or programmes aimed at reducing his risk of reoffending, as directed by the probation officer.
* He was not to associate with any person specified in writing by the probation officer.
* He was not to make contact with the victim's family without the approval of the probation officer.
