Mark Lundy supported after the funeral of his wife Christine and daughter Amber in 2000. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Mark Lundy supported after the funeral of his wife Christine and daughter Amber in 2000. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Mark Lundy - the man twice convicted of murdering his wife and daughter - wants to make pōhutukawa clocks that he could sell for around $200 once he's finally released from prison.
He'd also like to start attending services at an Anglican church, doing carpentry with a charity and be able to visit the graves of his family.
But those dreams were put on hold today when he came before the Parole Board for the first time in 20 years - and was declined. The board said it had "considerable concern" about the lack of a safety plan for his release.
Christine Lundy and her 7-year-old daughter Amber were found murdered in their Palmerston North home in August of 2000, bludgeoned with a tomahawk or something similar.
Lundy's conviction in March 2002 was followed by an unsuccessful appeal in August of that year, which increased his non-parole period to 20 years - a period which ends today.
Lundy was optimistic when greeted by the board at the beginning of the hearing, which took place at Tongariro Prison.
"I'm good," he said. "I'm always good."
His lawyer, Julie-Anne Kincade QC laid out seven reasons he would not be a risk to the community, which the board said was its paramount responsibility.
Among these were good behaviour in prison, no previous history of violence, positive reports from prison staff, a low statistical risk of reoffending score, a low future risk of violence score and letters of support from friends and family.
Mark Lundy in the dock during his trial in March 2015. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Kincade said "perhaps most persuasive of all", Lundy had been on bail from October of 2013 through to his retrial in February and March of 2015 and did not breach his bail conditions.
She said parole conditions were liable to be much stricter than the bail conditions he had seven years ago.
"Mr Lundy accepts the conditions suggested, but we suggest if the board does have any remaining concerns those conditions should ameliorate those concerns," she said.
The hearing was then turned to the parole board, with each member having questions for Lundy.
He was asked what he expected from the hearing, to which he replied he had "absolutely no idea".
"I've never been to a parole board before and this is all new to me. I would like a date," he said.
The board then asked him whether he had completed a safety plan. He said it was difficult to put together a safety plan for how to rejoin society as an offender when he hadn't done anything wrong.
Flowers line the footpath outside the Lundy home as police and forensic scientists work at the murder scene inside. Photo / Mark Mitchell
"If I had committed the offence, I would've plead guilty and I would've been out a long time ago," he said, adding that he could have been eligible for parole five to eight years ago if he had pleaded guilty.
"But I have vehemently denied the offending because I did not do it… and there is nothing I can say to alleviate that for you," he said. "I'm sorry, I would have pleaded guilty and I would have been out a long time ago."
The board said this was a moot point as being granted parole would have depended on the decisions of earlier parole boards.
Church and carpentry
The board acknowledged Lundy has received accolades for his performance in the prison's carpentry shop, although Lundy said any praise was for his team rather than his work as an individual.
A prison officer said Lundy was a "model prisoner" who was trusted to work outside the wire, doing maintenance work in the prison's master control, a "no-go area for most".
However, Covid restrictions over the past few years have prevented reintegration activities to go on from Tongariro Prison, with Lundy's monitored trips back into society being to the hospital.
Lundy detailed his plans for life upon release, saying he would like to start attending services at an Anglican church and do carpentry with charity Men's Shed. He said he would be wary of whether he was wanted at church services and other events, saying "I do not want to be where I'm not wanted".
The Lundy family. Photo / Supplied
He was unsure about his ability to go back into the workforce full-time because of health concerns, but said he had some money in an account and would rely on support from friends and family.
He also mentioned an idea he had to start making clocks from pōhutukawa burl, which a prison staff member had told him he could sell for around $200 each after seeing his handiwork in the carpentry shop.
The board asked him how he would deal with the expected media attention. Lundy said he would direct all media requests through his lawyer.
"Very wise to have a plan about that," said a board member.
The board raised the likelihood of parole conditions preventing free access to Manawatu, where the crimes he was convicted of had occurred.
Lundy said he had a good amount of friends there, but they would have to come visit him elsewhere. His only reason for returning to Manawatu was to visit the graves of his family.
"I would like to go to the cemetery to see my parents and my girls, but that would be purely at the approval of my probation officer," he said.
One board member said they had read reports that Lundy had an optimistic personality, and tended to retreat to his cell if upset.
She asked him to explain his behaviour at the funeral for his wife and daughter with respect to this.
"I think all of us have seen the conduct after the funeral, which is very different behaviour," she said referring to the dramatic images where he appeared to collapse and had to be supported by two friends.
Lundy went through his limited memories of the day, saying he has no recollection of the ceremony and that one of his biggest regrets was not having a video of it.
"My sister Caryl drove me to the church and I struggled to get out of the car, I was a psychological mess, a friend from Hamilton got me out and got me into the church hall, my next memory is about three hours later. I have no memory of the funeral and that really upset me," he said.
Mark Lundy supported after the funeral of his wife Christine and daughter Amber in 2000. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The board then questioned whether he would have financial issues upon release. Accusations of motives born from financial hardship had been floated by the Crown in the trial.
"I will not borrow money. So the financial issues cannot arise," Lundy replied. "At my age, whose gonna lend me money anyway?"
A heavy drinker
The board had questions about Lundy's drinking, as psychological reports had suggested the need for alcohol treatment and there was a difference between the self-reported amount of drinking and what others said.
Lundy admitted he was a heavy drinker, and said the difference in the reports may have come down to him drinking relatively less than some of the people in his past social circles.
"With the people I socialised with I was probably middle of the road. There were many people in our group who drank every night of the week. Christine and I might have nothing one week and out three nights the next," he said.
He said drinking was part of the culture at the Palmerston North Operatic Society and the Eastman Rover Scouts, which he was a part of.
A member of the board asked him if there were people in the Operatic Society who drank less than him, which he said was true, although "there were people who drank a damn sight more than I did".
"People usually drink for a reason and it's beneficial to know what that reason is."
Lundy said during the retrial he had not touched alcohol, recalling going out for dinner in Wellington and opting for ginger beer while those around him ordered beer and wine.
"Not drinking is not an issue," he said.
Lundy said after being out on bail seven years ago that he would make attempts to appear before the parole board, as he decided being out of prison under parole conditions was better than remaining behind bars.
No safety plan for release
The board questioned Lundy's case manager as to why he had not worked on a safety plan to which he replied: "It wasn't something that was on our radar in terms of his treatment and in terms of assisting him".
Lundy had previously mentioned that the case manager had been assigned to him 18 months ago but because of Covid disruptions, they had had had little chance to work together.
"We have not had any discussions with regard to a safety plan... because Mr Lundy is in denial," the case manager said.
The board said people often do their own safety plans, alleging Lundy would have seen other people's plans over the years.
Lundy said he had never read one.
"I know they have them and those people all have triggers for their offending. I have not offended, so there are no triggers for me… that I'm aware of," he said. "So to the best of my knowledge, a safety plan is based around those triggers and how to avoid them. So I could not work out how to actually do a safety plan as such."
They asked him what he would do in the event of a confrontation with a hostile member of the public upon release.
Lundy said he would try and get away from the situation, but if he couldn't he would use his phone to record the encounter for his own protection.
The board questioned whether recording might only "inflame things" and whether it would be best to simply extricate himself from the situation, which Lundy said he agreed with "wholeheartedly".
My word is my bond
Although his lawyer said Lundy had not had any misdemeanours during his time in prison, the board brought up a time when he sent another inmate mail using a pseudonym during his time out on bail.
Lundy said this was deceptive but when he promises something he feels he needs to follow through, and said a member of prison staff had advised him to use a different name.
"My word is my bond," he said.
Flowers line the footpath outside the Lundy home as police and forensic scientists work at the murder scene inside. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Kincade concluded by making three points about her client's chances at parole.
She repeated he had not been manipulative or deceptive, and said there had obviously been issues with Covid that had prevented him from getting help with writing a safety plan.
"It's not been ideal but I would hope the board would not hold that against him," she said.
Finally, she stressed that Lundy would know to extricate himself from confrontations with the public.
"He's had 20 years in prison avoiding confrontations," she said.
The convictions and appeals
It's been 20 years since Mark Lundy took his case to the Court of Appeal, with the hope it would overturn his conviction of murdering his wife and daughter.
The Crown argued he travelled home from a business trip to Petone and back in one evening to murder his family.
Lundy was convicted in March 2002. AFter an unsuccessful appeal in August of that year, his non-parole period increased from 17 to 20 years.
Another appeal to the Privy Council in 2013 predicated on the time of the victims' deaths, presence of organic tissue on Lundy's shirt and the time Christine's computer was turned off resulted in his convictions overturned for a second trial.
The retrial in 2015 expanded the window for the time of death to 14 hours, with the Crown alleging Lundy may have returned to Palmerston North early in the morning to murder his family.
Evidence that placed the killings in the early evening was used in the Crown's case this time. This included the barely digested McDonald's meals in the victims' stomachs and the testimony of a self-described psychic who said she saw a fat person in a blond curly wig running away from the area at 7pm on that Tuesday night.
Lundy was found guilty of both murders once more, and he returned to prison.
An appeal of his second conviction was launched to the Court of Appeal in October 2017, but was dismissed a year later. A concurrent appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed at the end of that same year.
Te Kāhui Tātari Ture - also known as the Criminal Cases Review Commission - is investigating an application for a review of the case, after which it will decide whether to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal.
