Raymond Ratima, pictured in 1993, murdered seven of his family members after the breakdown of his relationship. Photo / NZ Herald.
Raymond Ratima, pictured in 1993, murdered seven of his family members after the breakdown of his relationship. Photo / NZ Herald.
A psychologist who found that a man was not insane when he murdered seven of his family members should not have also sat on a panel to decide whether that same man could be released from prison early, a court has found.
Raymond Ratima pleaded guilty tokilling his three sons Piripi, 7, Barney, 5, and Stacey, 2, in their grandparents’ home in Masterton in 1992. He also killed his brother-in-law Philip Ferguson Junior, 14, his heavily-pregnant sister-in-law Nicola Ferguson, 20, her partner Bevan Tepu, 21, and their son Stephen, 3.
Before Ratima pleaded guilty, Professor Phil Brinded prepared a report that found the unemployed shearer was not mentally ill at the time of the septuple homicide and was fit to stand trial.
Another report also found that Ratima exhibited narcissistic personality traits as well as possessiveness and jealousy, that when combined with the breakdown of his relationship, were likely significant contributors in him committing the murders.
After Ratima pleaded guilty, Brinded prepared a third report assessing his future risk.
“It is quite possible that many of the personality factors, views held by the defendant and the intense domestic situation, may remain largely unchanged during a period of incarceration…” an excerpt from that report reads.
“I believe the defendant’s future potential for dangerousness must be regarded as high if he does not receive significant help in changing the psychological and social situation within which he acted out so disastrously.”
Raymond Ratima was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1993 after pleading guilty to seven counts of murder, attempted murder and killing an unborn child. Photo / NZ Herald
Ratima was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murders with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years in 1993. He has served 32 years for his crimes and has been denied parole 15 times with the most-recent hearing being in March this year.
After his 14th unsuccessful attempt at an early release from prison in October 2022, Ratima lodged a bid with the High Court claiming that the Parole Board was biased in refusing his release.
Central to the claim was that Professor Brinded, who had at that stage sat on the panel for seven of Ratima’s hearings, could have a perception of bias, given he had written reports assessing Ratima’s sanity and future risk of danger to the community.
Ratima requested a rehearing of his 2022 appearance before the board, this time without Professor Brinded on the panel.
A hearing into the claim was held at the High Court in November last year but while Ratima was still waiting for a result, he came up for another scheduled parole hearing in March this year.
At the start of the March hearing, the chair of the board, Sir Ron Young, noted that he’d asked Professor Brinded to recuse himself from the panel in lieu of a decision from the court.
Ratima was denied parole at that hearing for a fifteenth time after changing his story and admitting to the board that he did intend to kill his family.
This week, Justice Lisa Preston issued her finding that there was an “appearance – or perception – of bias” in Professor Brinded sitting on the panel to decide if Ratima qualified for early release from prison.
“It might be inferred in the circumstances that the professor was in possession of information from his multiple assessments of Mr Ratima in 1992, which extended beyond that set out in his reports,” Justice Preston found.
Pyschiatrist Dr Phil Brinded. Photo / Otago Daily Times.
“A fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the professor might not bring an impartial mind to the parole decision making process.”
Ratima’s lawyer, Roger Eagles, also put to the court that his client had educational limitations and borderline IQ, which was why he hadn’t objected to Professor Brinden sitting on the panel at previous hearings.
However, Ratima has had a different lawyer for almost every appearance, Eagles said, and not raising his objection wasn’t the same as consenting to it, and Justice Preston agreed.
“The apparent bias arising from Professor Brinded’s inclusion on the panel was not waived by Mr Ratima. In this respect there was a breach of natural justice and relief should be granted,” her judgement notes.
Justice Preston awarded Ratima a rehearing of his October 2022 appearance before the parole board with a panel that didn’t include Professor Brinded.
Eagles told NZME that Ratima had not yet decided if he was going to request a rehearing from the board.
A New Zealand Parole Board spokesperson said it had received the judgement and was considering its position.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
