Corrections say there’s no evidence Tekuru, who last week pleaded guilty to breaching his release conditions by going to a playground, had left the premises.
However, a review is underway, with Corrections saying it appears staff should have made further attempts to contact him.
Tekuru was sent to prison for the attempted abduction and released on March 10.
But a week later, on March 17, he was back in custody accused of breaching his release conditions. He pleaded guilty on April 16 and was moved to an address organised by Corrections.
In response to questions from RNZ, Corrections’ acting director of communities, partners Simon Chaplin said Tekuru was subject to 12 release conditions, including being electronically monitored. He is currently living at a residence on Corrections prison land.
Chaplin confirmed that about 6pm on Monday, Corrections’ national electronic monitoring operations staff identified his tracker was going flat.
“They contacted staff at the residence to advise them of the battery alert and the need for Mr Tekuru to charge his tracker. Staff attempted to contact Mr Tekuru via the residence intercom but received no response.
“At 11.41pm, a no-communication alert indicated that he had still not charged his tracker and that it had gone flat. Corrections staff and a field officer then physically visited his residence. When he did not answer the door, Corrections contacted police.”
Police found Tekuru asleep at the residence just after 4am on Tuesday, April 21, and he was arrested, Corrections said.
A police spokesperson told RNZ that they were called to assist Corrections at 3.30am on that day.
Tekuru was arrested for breaching court release conditions and released from police custody a short time later.
Chaplin said there was “no information to indicate” Tekuru left his premises during the time his battery was flat.
“However, initial information suggests that staff should have made further attempts to contact Mr Tekuru between the time his battery was going flat and the no communication alert.
“A review into this timeline will be carried out, with further reminders provided to staff about the expectation that any potential non-compliance by this offender is to be immediately actioned.”
Chaplin said Tekuru was temporarily located at a residence on Corrections land.
“Corrections is working to find suitable long-term housing for this offender. Any proposed address for people for offending such as this person undergoes an assessment to determine suitability.
“This includes looking at a range of factors including the location of victims, other occupants at the property including any children or people subject to community sentences, location of support services, cellular coverage and power if electronic monitoring is a condition of the person’s order.”
Police would consult with other agencies, including police, as part of the assessment.
“We take our management of offenders in the community extremely seriously, and this person would not be allowed to reside at an address if it was not deemed suitable for them to do so.”
Corrections Chief Probation Officer Toni Stewart told Checkpoint on Wednesday it was “fair to acknowledge” that staff could have acted more quickly.
“We have very quickly commissioned a review to understand what actions were taken and where we might have done things better and could have acted quicker.
“That said, we have taken some immediate steps to ensure this person’s compliance with their special conditions, that includes over the last couple of days a multidisciplinary team meeting with Corrections and police to agree a really clear plan to take action if he continues to be non-compliant with his conditions, including charging his electronic monitoring device.”
Asked why staff didn’t go to the residence as soon as they were notified the tracker was going flat, Stewart said that would form part of the review.
“Our immediate priority has been to establish, do we have information to suggest he left the premises during that period? And as I say, initial indications are that he absolutely didn’t.”
Stewart then said staff were still reviewing CCTV footage to get information on whether there were any movements.
“We’re confident that during that window of time he was asleep at his residence.”
Stewart said the staff did go into the residence.
“This residence on Corrections land is staffed, and so they’ve gone over, they have entered, they have called out to him and attempted to make contact. He hasn’t responded.
“They haven’t at that point, all of the internal doors were closed, and they haven’t at that point, made any attempts to enter any of the rooms. Whether or not they should have done that will form part of the review.”
Asked if she accepted the response fell short of what should have been done, Stewart said “I think it’s very fair to say that staff could have acted quicker”.
This included closer monitoring of the battery levels of his electronic monitoring device as well as contact between probation staff and Tekuru to remind him to charge his device.
Chaplin confirmed an application had not been made for an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) or Public Protection Order (PPO) in relation to Tekuru.
To meet the criteria to be considered for an ESO application, an individual is required to be considered a high risk of further offending and must meet a number of specific criteria under the Parole Act.
“Crown Law makes an application on Corrections’ instruction if an ESO is pursued. ESOs are imposed by the courts and can be imposed for up to 10 years at a time following their release from prison.
“It is a decision for the court as to whether a person’s offending and level of risk meet the legislative criteria and the risk of harm justifies the restriction of an ESO. In some cases the court may decide to impose intensive monitoring for up to 12 months, which is person to person monitoring at all times.”
A PPO is a court order that allows the detention of “very high-risk individuals” at a secure facility within prison precincts.
“Only a very small number of people are likely to be subject to public protection orders, and this is a decision for the High Court.”
After his guilty plea last week, RNZ asked Corrections about Tekuru’s new living arrangements.
Chaplin said at the time public safety was their “top priority and we are closely monitoring this offender to ensure he complies with his conditions”.
“Any non-compliance with these conditions will be taken extremely seriously and acted on immediately.”
Chief victims adviser responds
Chief victims adviser Ruth Money told RNZ that Corrections’ response was “simply not good enough” and she was “horrified about the lack of risk management going on here”.
“I am terrified about what can happen for the community,” she said.
“Why are we not risk managing and putting prevention first? This person clearly can’t control his urges. He is allegedly safe in corrections care, and I don’t understand why we’re not putting community risk first and investigating where he is.”
Money said as soon as Corrections were unable to get hold of Tekuru on the intercom someone should have visited the site.
“It’s not that difficult. He’s on Corrections facilities … this person is clearly a high risk and I just cannot believe the staff involved did not think that it was their job to make that phone call and check where this high-risk offender was.”
Money said she did not understand why a PPO had not been applied for.
“A PPO is for someone who has got an intense urge, and we can see that this person can’t control his compulsions. You can see that there is evidence on the file. I am horrified about the risk to community.”
Earlier breach
During the court hearing last week, Judge Jonathan Moses said Tekuru was subject to electronic monitoring and had a special condition he not loiter or enter a place where people under 16 are unless approved.
These included the likes of schools, early childhood centres, parks, libraries and churches.
Judge Moses said two days after his release, electronic monitoring information placed Tekuru in a playground.
He was questioned about this and issued with a written warning.
Judge Moses said other electronic monitoring information on March 14, confirmed Tekuru had gone into the grounds of a school, which had an early childcare centre sharing an access way.
“You had therefore breached your conditions of release in that you were in the vicinity of a school or early childcare centre,” he said.
“You admitted walking past those facilities but said you were only walking within your local area,” the judge said.
A summary of facts released to RNZ shows Tekuru was at the playground at Alfriston Park in Manurewa in Auckland between 4.29am and 4.45am.
After that on March 14, he was at Alfriston College between 9.28am and 9.32am, and he then went to the Go Bananas childcare centre between 9.36am and 9.40am.
When questioned about that, the summary says Tekuru admitted to walking past early childcare facilities but said he was only walking within his local area.
Judge Moses said he took Tekuru’s age, 20, and his one prior conviction into consideration.
“What I’m going to do today is to convict you and sentence you to imprisonment for a period of one month taking your guilty plea and those other features into account,” he said.
Tekuru had already been in custody since March 17.
No extra conditions were imposed because Tekuru was still subject to his earlier ones and he will be moved to an address organised by Corrections.
‘Bound to offend again’
Tekuru’s case earlier sparked concern from the Sensible Sentencing Trust, which has called for him to face stricter monitoring.
He was released from jail under a provision that an offender be let out early if their sentence is two years or less.
The Trust said he served 12 months.
It has written to the Department of Corrections, it says in a rare action, urging it to consider an ESO, or PPO.
It earlier told RNZ that Tekuru was “bound to offend again”.
The department earlier said Tekuru was subject to multiple special conditions when he was released in March, including:
Electronic monitoring (GPS)Residence at an approved addressNo contact with children under 16 unless supervised by an “Approved Informed Adult” and authorised in writingNo entering areas where children are likely to be present (eg, playgrounds, schools) without written approvalNo contact with the victimMandatory psychological assessment and treatmentMandatory alcohol and drug treatmentNo use of alcohol or non-prescribed drugsProhibition on entering Rotorua without written approval
-RNZ