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
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
A mass murderer who killed his three young sons during a rampage fuelled by a relationship breakdown has taken the New Zealand Parole Board to court, raising the possibility of bias after being denied release from prison 14 times.
Raymond Wahia Ratima, 55, was jailed for life in 1992 afterbeing found guilty of killing seven people, including three of his own children, on a murderous rampage in Masterton.
Today, Ratima appeared via audio-video link in the High Court at Christchurch, seeking a review of the Parole Board’s decision to not grant him parole.
On June 25, 1992, Ratima killed his three sons Piripi, 7, Barney, 5, and Stacey, 2, in their grandparents’ Masterton home.
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.
Ratima then lay in wait for his wife and her parents to return home, seriously injuring his father-in-law. He was convicted of attempting to murder him.
Ratima was sentenced in 1993 to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years after pleading guilty to seven counts of murder, attempted murder and killing an unborn child.
Raymond Ratima has been denied parole 14 times and is now raising the issue of potential bias.
Today, Ratima’s lawyer Roger Eagles argued that Parole Board member Professor Phillip Brinded’s previous involvement with Ratima, when he prepared psychological reports in 1992, could create bias.
Eagles said Brinded is the only one on the Parole Board panel who had “extensive personal contact” with Ratima when he was preparing psychological reports, stating this could create a “perception of bias” when it came to Ratima’s parole hearing.
Justice Lisa Preston questioned why Ratima, who knew about Brinded’s involvement in the hearing, didn’t make any objection. However, Eagles said it was simply “unfair” to put that responsibility on Ratima as the plaintiff.
Eagles said Ratima had “significant academic problems” due to his educational background and it should be the chairperson’s responsibility to raise such issues.
Eagles further raised the issue of potential bias when it came to Ratima, as he had gone for parole multiple times and not been granted it once.
However, Justice Preston said she was “troubled” by this submission, stating a risk assessment had to be conducted at each hearing before a prisoner could be granted parole.
Counsel for the New Zealand Parole Board Matthew Smith argued that an understanding of the offending and explanation for it is relevant when it comes to considering a prisoner for release.
Raymond Ratima.
Smith said it was important to identify situations of future stress and any triggers or motivators that led to the offending in the first place, and what can be done to prevent this.
Smith said Brinded made it known from the outset that he had previous involvement in Ratima’s case but said it wouldn’t necessarily trigger bias.
He said every board decision is made with the most up-to-date information and material that is before them during the hearing, rather than considering information that was made available years ago.
Eagles also argued that the previous Parole Board hearing had “gone off track” as Ratima was questioned on the motivation behind his offending and the impacts it had on his victims.
Eagles said comments made by members of the board implied that Ratima shouldn’t even be applying for parole, as he didn’t appear to fully appreciate the impact on his victims.
Eagles said Ratima had no issue with the information that was provided in the psychological reports as he believed they were supportive, but the board took a different view.
Eagles said if Ratima’s application for a review of the Parole Board’s decision was successful, then he would need to discuss with him whether he would like a rehearing, or to wait until his next appearance before the board in April 2024.
Ratima was last denied parole in October 2022.
During another Parole Board hearing in 2021, it emerged he had started a relationship with a “fragile” woman while in prison.
The board had concerns about the woman’s vulnerability, due to her childhood trauma and comments she had made to the probation officer, including the fact that “there are two sides to all issues”.
The pair met in their early teens and had rekindled a relationship when Ratima was on a guided release, and since then, there had been regular visits and phone contact between them.
Despite nearly 100 sessions with a psychologist since 2013, board chair Sir Ron Young said there were still concerns the man lacked insight into his crimes.
“Mr Ratima throughout the hearing stressed how much he loved his children. When we asked him therefore why he had killed them, he said he felt he then was putting them in a better place,” Young said during the 2021 hearing.
The board questioned the appropriateness of Ratima’s new relationship with the woman, given the murders occurred when his last relationship broke down.
Ratima stressed that this relationship was different and he was supported by his new partner’s family, but the board wasn’t convinced and denied his parole.
