[ad_1]
Police did not have a clear process for dealing with people on probation for life when officers detained a convicted killer en route to his second brutal murder in 24 years, the police watchdog says.
But it was “reasonable” to let him go, despite the fact that he was drunk and had knives in the car.
Paul Pounamu Tainui, born Paul Russell Wilson, was on probation for the 1994 murder of his girlfriend, Kimberley Schroder, 21, when he was caught driving under the influence of alcohol in Christchurch on April 6, 2018.
Shortly after leaving the booze bus, he took a taxi to the Merivale home of Nicole Tuxford, 27, and waited overnight to rape and murder her when he got home around 8 a.m.
Wilson, then 55, was sentenced in March of last year to life in prison, with a minimum period of 28 years without parole.
READ MORE:
* Mothers of victims of double killer Paul Tainui plead with Jacinda Ardern for an independent review
* Convicted murderer Paul Russell Wilson could have been immediately called to prison – Parole Board
* Remorse and Confession: A Killer’s Own Words
* ‘That was dumb,’ said killer Paul Tainui inside the police bus.
* Double killer Paul Russell Wilson is unlikely to be released
* The second near-identical brutal murder of David Bain’s best man Paul Russell Wilson in 24 years
* Police defend officers who arrested killer Paul Wilson while driving under the influence with knives in a car, hours before the second murder
On Thursday, the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) released its investigation into the alcohol checkpoint.
He found it “reasonable” that an officer did not arrest or detain Tainui at the checkpoint when it was discovered that he was driving under the influence and had knives in the car.
“At that time there were no clear processes that he could follow regarding parolees and nothing in the law that requires parolees to be arrested when they are suspected of committing a crime in prison,” said the president. of authority, Judge Colin Doherty.
Tuxford’s mother, Cherie Gillatt, said officers who dealt with Tainui should not have let him go.
“They made wrong decisions.
“They had him for driving under the influence, knives in his car, they had done it for killing Kim and on probation. They let him go. “
GEORGE HEARD / THINGS
Who is Paul Russell Wilson, the double murderer who murdered two women 24 years apart?
Stuff He previously revealed the statements made by the two officers who dealt with Tainui the night before he killed Tuxford. The names of both officers were redacted in the documents.
Officer A was part of an 11-person team that opened an alcohol checkpoint on Bealey Ave, between Madras and Manchester streets, around 9.45 p.m. on April 6, 2018.
A short time later, he noticed a car stop at some nearby traffic lights and then back slowly against traffic. The driver stopped in a parking lot 20 to 30 meters down the street.
When asked why he backed up his car, Tainui said he needed to “park”.
He admitted that he had had a couple of drinks and an initial drunk driving test showed that there was alcohol in his system.
The officer then verified Tainui on the National Intelligence App and saw an alert on his profile.
Tainui was found to be nearly three times the legal limit for drunk driving, having recorded 614 micrograms of alcohol per liter of breath.
When asked why he was driving, Tainui said he was “going to a friend’s house on Manchester St.”
The officer took Tainui’s photograph and fingerprints, and told him that his car key would be at the Christchurch Central Police Station for 12 hours.
“We had a general discussion during which Tainui said, ‘I’m screwed, that was silly,'” the officer said.
“I didn’t think much of it, however in hindsight that was the only time his behavior changed throughout the process.”
Then came a question that made the officer anxious: Tainui wanted to know if he could get a jacket, a cell phone, a gas can, and some knives out of his car.
The officer knew that Tainui’s earlier murder involved a “stab / chop weapon”, so he was concerned when he mentioned that he had knives in his car.
Tainui claimed he needed the knives to work, but the officer told him he would be “happier if they stayed in the car … considering his criminal history.”
Officer B, who was interviewed by police on April 11, was testing another drunk driver while Officer A was processing Tainui.
“My observations of Tainui were that he was cooperative … and he did everything [Officer A] I ask. I never heard him raise his voice or get frustrated. “
The officer heard Tainui ask if he could get his knives out of the car.
“At this stage, I had no idea of Tainui’s history, I guess [Officer A] he had looked it up on the police computer, but he hadn’t told me. “
Officer A told Officer B about Tainui’s previous murder conviction after he returned to the booze bus.
“We didn’t know any details about this murder, only that it existed.”
A spokesman for the Parole Board later said that both driving under the influence and possessing a knife could be grounds for recall, depending on the particular circumstances.
Driving under the influence of alcohol is a crime punishable by imprisonment and therefore a specific reason for a recall, the spokesman said.
Under the Parole Act, a parole officer or police officer could directly petition the board for a revocation.