Jail-death inquest battle
Ex-prison officer to challenge findings, writes Helen King.
For the past six years the death of a friend has weighed heavily on Rodger Hinton.
In 2010 he was a Corrections officer at Springhill Prison in the Waikato when colleague Jason Palmer was killed by inmate Latu Kepu.
As three prison officers, including Palmer, were letting Kepu out of his cell the Killer Beez gang member threw one, fatal punch.
Hinton has gone over those fateful few minutes repeatedly since, and believes there was nothing he could have done to save his colleague.
But he feels the inquest unfairly held him partly responsible. Now he intends to fight back by seeking a rare legal review of the findings.
Hinton, 65, said he took a job as a prison officer after losing a large sum of money in an investment property in January 2010. He was in his late 50s and had no prior experience of working with criminals, but needed an income.
On May 15, 2010, Palmer and two colleagues were tasked with unlocking Kepu’s cell and getting him ready for a prison transfer. All three had been Corrections officers for less than six months.
Palmer was Kepu’s case manager and had written him up for behaviour violations, and the most recent was the reason the inmate was being transferred to Auckland Prison at Paremoremo. As he left the cell, Kepu punched Palmer, who fell backwards and suffered fatal head injuries.
Hinton, who left Corrections six months after the incident, said testifying at Kepu’s trial was an unnerving experience.
Kepu, a large and intimidating man, was sitting a few metres away as he gave his evidence. And Hinton also felt Corrections had an agenda.
‘‘During the trial I felt like the police prosecutor was trying to get me to say certain things and again. I wasn’t briefed so I wasn’t sure what was going on.’’
Kepu was sentenced to six further years in prison for manslaughter.
But at the subsequent Coronial hearing, Hinton felt as if it was him on trial.
He had been out of the prison service for a year and was never given a briefing by Corrections or any other authority about what to expect.
Hinton simply answered a knock on the door of his North Waikato home to find a police officer with a subpoena.
‘‘The coroner said in his review that I was confused, well I was, I felt like said.
The Ministry of Justice said the Coronial Services website notes that those appearing at an inquest do not have to have a lawyer but might prefer to. Corrections Regional Commissioner Terry Buffery said they support all staff appearing before inquests and other judicial hearings.
‘‘Mr Hinton left Corrections a year before the inquest hearing.’’
Coroner Gordon Matenga concluded that if Kepu’s threat towards Palmer had been reported to senior staff then they could have removed him from the unlock.
‘‘The failure to report the threat has had a direct bearing on the incident.’’ I was on trial,’’ Hinton
But Hinton is adamant Kepu’s animosity toward Palmer was well known to the senior officers.
‘‘I told Palmer about it at lunchtime and he had a meeting with the superior officers who asked if he was happy with the unlock.’’
Palmer had responded ‘‘he’s still pissed at me’’.
Hinton’s belief that senior management at Corrections were aware Kepu had an issue with Palmer is shared by the former Marine’s family in the US. George Palmer said his younger brother had told upper management he thought his life was in danger.
‘‘They continued to have him deal with a violent prisoner. He had more than one run-in with this guy and his life was threatened over and over,’’ he said.
His brother made several reports that appeared to fall on deaf ears.
‘‘Jason was one of the newest officers there, why would he be placed with the most dangerous prisoner when he lacked experience as a correctional officer?’’
He said the family hold Corrections responsible and believe the senior management team should have been on trial too.
The Ministry of Justice confirmed the Coroner has no power to reconsider an inquiry after issuing a finding. However,The High Court may order another inquiry if it is satisfied there is sufficient reason, and there is no time limit on such proceedings.