Key Takeaways
- Matamata’s parole was initially granted but revoked after he made threatening remarks to a fellow inmate.
- He appeared before the Parole Board again, speaking Samoan via an interpreter, claiming he did not understand the English threats he repeated.
- The board chairwoman remained unconvinced, noting his prior promise to “walk away” from confrontations and questioning why he engaged in the argument.
- The dispute originated over missing groceries in a self‑care house; Matamata insisted his comments were jokes, not threats.
- Despite Matamata’s assurances of future good behaviour—focusing on family, church, and Bible study—the board denied parole, allowing him to reapply in October.
Background of the Parole Decision
Matamata had been repeatedly denied parole last year before finally being granted release last month, with a scheduled date of July 6. The approval was short‑lived; the Parole Board rescinded the decision after he allegedly threatened another prisoner, prompting an immediate review of his suitability for release.
The Threatening Remarks That Led to Revocation
According to the board, Matamata was charged and found guilty of threatening to assault a fellow inmate. The specific language he used—repeating a vulgar phrase he claimed to have heard—was deemed sufficiently serious to warrant the withdrawal of his parole approval, even though he later argued the words were not meant as a genuine threat.
Matamata’s Appearance Before the Board
On the Friday hearing, Matamata spoke in Samoan through an interpreter. He told the board that his limited English comprehension prevented him from understanding the meaning of the words he uttered, framing his repetition as a misunderstanding rather than an intentional threat.
Chairwoman Jan Doogue’s Initial Response
Board chairwoman Jan Doogue challenged Matamata’s claim, summarizing his defence as asserting complete innocence and ignorance of the situation. She asked for confirmation that he believed he had done nothing wrong, setting the stage for a deeper inquiry into his motives and awareness.
Explanation of the Repeated Phrase
Matamata insisted that the phrase he repeated—“I’m going to fk you up”—was merely a reflection of prison slang he had heard directed at him. He described it as “con slang,” arguing that he was mirroring the language used by others in a joking tone and had no intention to intimidate or scare anyone.
Board’s Skepticism Toward the Defence
Doogue remained unconvinced, pointing out that Matamata had been formally charged and convicted of threatening behaviour. She highlighted the inconsistency between his claim of ignorance and the board’s finding that his words constituted a genuine threat, questioning the credibility of his lack‑of‑understanding argument.
Prior Promise to Walk Away Confronted
The chairwoman reminded Matamata of his previous testimony, in which he stated that, if faced with a confrontational situation, he would “walk away.” She pressed him to explain why he had not withdrawn from the argument over groceries, challenging the sincerity of his earlier commitment to avoid conflict.
Context of the Grocery Dispute
Matamata clarified that the disagreement began in the self‑care house at Auckland South Correctional Facility in Wiri, where residents were discussing missing items from their supermarket shopping. He said he approached the fellow inmate to discuss the issue, asserting that the matter was trivial and not worth a heated exchange.
Matamata’s Version of the Argument
He maintained that his comments were meant as a light‑hearted retort, not a threat. “There was no intention to threaten him,” he said, adding that he could have retreated to his room but chose to stay and talk because he wanted to resolve the issue amicably with his “brother.”
Question From Board Member Campbell Roberts
Campbell Roberts asked Matamata how he would alter his behaviour if released. The board member sought assurance that the inmate would not repeat past patterns of aggression or misuse of influence.
Matamata’s Pledge for Future Conduct
In response, Matamata vowed to change: he would not wield the power he previously held, recognizing its harmful impact on others and himself. He promised to centre his life on his immediate family, attend church, read the Bible, and grow closer to God as a means of staying on a positive path.
Board Deliberation and Final Decision
After a brief deliberation, the Parole Board concluded that Matamata had not demonstrated sufficient insight or remorse to warrant release. Consequently, they declined his parole application. He was informed that he may reapply for consideration in October, giving him additional time to address the board’s concerns.