KEY POINTS:
The fundamental mistake in the mismanagement of convicted murderer Graeme Burton's parole in 2006, which ended with the death of Karl Kuchenbecker in early 2007, was treating the highly volatile and dangerous offender as a normal parolee, the Wellington Coroner says.
Coroner Garry Evans yesterday released his report into the death of Mr Kuchenbecker, a Wainuiomata father-of-two, shot and stabbed by Burton in the hills above Lower Hutt on January 6, 2007.
Burton was shot and arrested by police on the same day and is serving a sentence of preventive detention, with a minimum non-parole period of 26 years.
Mr Evans endorsed the findings and recommendations of the Independent Police Conduct Authority report, released in February, and did not make any further recommendations to the Parole Board, Department of Corrections or the Police.
The three organisations have already implemented changes to how they manage paroled prisoners after Mr Kuchenbecker's death.
Mr Evans noted changes made by the parties responsible for managing the release of prisoners into the community went to the heart of the deficiencies in Burton's case.
"Fundamentally, Burton was treated as a normal parolee ... when, in fact, he was a high-risk, high-profile parolee, registered on the department's Offender Warning System, who required close monitoring for early signs of relapse and the taking of immediate and effective action on presentation of such signs, evidence that he posed an undue risk to the safety of the community, or breach of release conditions."
Mr Evans said had Burton's parole been managed differently, Mr Kuchenbecker's death "might have been prevented".
"Of course, this is viewing matters in retrospect."
Mr Evans found failings in communication between the Department of Corrections, probation services, the Parole Board and the police.
Burton was paroled on July 10, 2006 after serving 14 years of a life sentence for killing nightclub lighting technician Paul Anderson.
Allegations Burton had been implicated in the serious assaults of three inmates at Rimutaka Prison in early 2006, and had allegedly solicited other inmates to do "hits" on staff, were only indirectly referred to in a psychologist's report to the Parole Board and were ignored in a department pre-release report.
A prison officer at Burton's parole hearing gave a glowing report of his conduct and the board was not told his security classification was raised just three months before he was released.
Mr Evans said it was "quite unsatisfactory" the Parole Board had been given "such a schizophrenic picture".
Burton's compliance with his parole conditions began to unravel on October 5.
He did not turn up for work placement, and did not answer phone calls from his probation officer. The next day he failed to attend a maintenance group session - the first of six breaches of parole before a warrant for his arrest was issued.
Meanwhile, police received intelligence Burton was allegedly using stand-over tactics to exhort money from local drug dealers.
Police voiced concern to the probation service that Burton would kill again, but the two parties reached an impasse over what could be done.
The probation service said in the absence of charges, he could not be recalled to prison unless police supplied an affidavit outlining the allegations to present to the Parole Board.
Police refused, saying it could expose their informers.
On December 22, a warrant was issued, but not picked up by police - who were not widely aware of the warrant until January 1. This delay may have resulted in "missed opportunities," Mr Evans said.
The probation officer was not adequately supervised, and her workload was heavy at the high-risk offender end. She did not receive the "practical support and instruction she needed to control a determined and very difficult parolee".
Mr Evans rejected claims from the Department of Corrections that there was no basis for charging Burton with breach of parole at the end of November.
"[The court] finds that there was a substantial body of information available to the department as at 30 November which was sufficient to justify the making of an application for recall had the departmental officers involved in Mr Burton's management understood that fact."
There was no evidence of the involvement of the service manager in Burton's management, which remained in the hands of his relatively junior probation officer.
" ... the department's management of Burton fell below legitimate public expectations and well below the standard it set in its pre-release addendum report of June 2006 to the board ... ".
In this report the department said Burton would be managed with "zero tolerance".
"On the evidence Burton should have been brought to heel immediately he began to breach the conditions of his parole.
"Instead, he was permitted to move about on a long lead, continuing to breach his conditions without the timely instigation of effective sanctions."
Mr Evans said a meeting between senior officers of the department and police to urgently find a way of bringing Burton back into custody was "manifestly" needed.
"If legal advice had been sought, it was likely a way forward would have been found and an application for recall made shortly after."
In ending his lengthy report, Mr Evans expressed his "sincere sympathy" to the family of Mr Kuchenbecker.
TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS
2006 February 12
Prisoner found in "badly beaten state" in Unit 4 at Rimutaka Prison - would not say who had done it.
February 20
Another prisoner asked to be moved from Unit 4, saying he was sick of being assaulted by the same person, but would not say who.
March 4
Unit 4 prisoner receives broken arm and ribs, pleads to be moved to another unit, but will not say who assaulted him.
April
Intelligence gathered that in all three cases, the offender was convicted murderer Graeme Burton, 36. Further intelligence alleges Burton was soliciting other prisoners to do "hits" on two staff. Burton moved from low security Unit 4 into high medium Unit 3.
May
Burton reported to be using a mobile phone.
June
Inmate asked to be put into segregation, saying he feared for his safety after multiple assaults from Burton.
June 28
Parole Board hearing for Burton. Only indirect references to above information given to board.
July 10
Burton is released on parole having served 14 years of a life sentence for murder.
October
Burton begins breaching his parole conditions.
November
Through informants, police hear that Burton and an associate have committed a series of armed assaults on Wellington drug dealers.
November 27
Probation tells police they will take steps to have Burton recalled to prison at the first sign of any charges being laid.
November 28
Police launch a formal investigation into Burton's activities.
November 30
Probation asks police if they will put the information they already have in an affidavit, to support an application to recall Burton to prison. Police refuse, because of a concern informants could be identified.
December 7
Police hear Burton is moving out of his specified Wellington flat - a clear breach of parole. Police do not step up their hunt despite being able to arrest offenders if they believe their parole has been breached.
December 12
Burton fails to show up to a parole meeting for the second time in a week. But his probation officer was away for a week, meaning no one was notified.
December 19
Probation notifies the courts and police of Burton's parole breach.
December 22
The Wellington District Court issues an arrest warrant. A phone message from Probation to police notifying them of the warrant is missed. The warrant is not properly actioned until January 4.
December 29
Parole Board convener issues a second arrest warrant, faxed to Wellington central police station, but not actioned properly until January 1.
2007 January 1-6
Police carry out urgent manhunt for Burton.
January 6
Burton shoots Karl Kuchenbecker dead in the hills above Wainuiomata. Police arrest Burton. The Independent Police Conduct Authority report finds the officers involved acted appropriately and with courage.
- NZPA
