Key points
- Experts raise concerns about parole conditions that ban Mark Lundy from media interviews, and social media
- Twice convicted of murdering his wife and daughter, he maintains his innocence
- Parole Board says Lundy agreed to media ban
- Private investigator says the restriction takes away a person’s most important tool – their own voice.
Mark Lundy hasn’t said or written a word publicly since he was released from prison early last month.
That’s because the man twice convicted of murdering his wife Christine and daughter Amber in Palmerston North in August 2000 cannot speak to the media, post on social media or blog about his case.
Given he proclaims his innocence, there is concern this Parole Board condition impinges on his right to freedom of speech.
He’s on a life sentence, so he potentially could be subjected to conditions for decades.
When the Parole Board raised the possibility of banning Lundy from giving media interviews, his response was clear: “I’d welcome it with open arms,” he told board members.
He said when he was on bail ahead of his 2015 retrial, reporters swarmed his street and accosted him.
Private investigator Tim McKinnel said the parole condition not to speak publicly took away a person’s most important tool – their own voice.
“I think these conditions that gag or muzzle prisoners who come out of prison, who are maintaining their innocence, are really problematic,” he said.
“I think there is a real risk that comes from preventing people from speaking out on their own behalf.”
Such conditions might be well intentioned, but they were a breach of freedom of expression, McKinnel said.
That it was the board raising the matter with Lundy, rather than something he brought up, was concerning.
“I think that’s quite different than having that question put to them by the Parole Board: ‘We are contemplating a condition where you cannot speak publicly about your case, what do you think about that?’
“In the context of a parole hearing, you’re going to be a pretty brave prisoner to push back on the Parole Board against those types of questions or scenarios.”
In some wrongful conviction cases, such as Gail Maney, her public advocacy played a huge role in proving she was not involved in killing Deane Fuller-Sandys in the late 1980s, McKinnel said.
“Look at the history of wrongful conviction cases in New Zealand. There is scarcely a case when the media haven’t played a fundamentally important role in exposing those miscarriages of justice.
“If you take away the voice of the prisoner in arguing for themselves, I think you’re at risk of preventing some of these cases emerging.”
McKinnel is known for his work in helping expose Teina Pora’s wrongful conviction for killing Susan Burdett.
Pora was also banned from talking to media when on parole before his conviction was quashed. A progress parole hearing heard he was grateful to live without media intrusion.
In a statement, the Parole Board said it had imposed media restrictions on rare occasions when granting parole.
It did so in Lundy’s case to protect him, after he expressed concerns about media interest in him, and to take into account victims’ concerns about news reports from when he was on bail awaiting retrial.
Media law expert Steven Price said the restriction on Lundy was wide ranging.
“It’s not just that he can’t speak to the media, he can’t go on social media either, and he can’t go on webpages his parole officer says he can’t go on.
“They’re pretty wide restrictions and they certainly affect his freedom of speech.”
The Parole Board could impose restrictions for reasons such as reducing the chance of reoffending, but it couldn’t be more restrictive than necessary.
Price agreed with McKinnel that people up for parole, such as Lundy, were likely to agree with any condition the board suggested.
“[Lundy’s] been convicted twice of murder in extremely controversial circumstances and he can’t talk about that to the media. We can’t ask him about that.
“We can’t ask him about his experiences in prison. He can’t even go on social media and join a Facebook group to support… the All Blacks.”
Price said the board should have tailored restrictions on Lundy’s speech to limit what would genuinely be harmful, but he acknowledged it was a difficult situation.
Koi Tū research fellow Dr Gavin Ellis said he hoped the Parole Board would review Lundy’s restriction at some point, given its implications for free speech.
“It’s the wider principle that I think, as a society, we need to safeguard. The rights under the Bill of Rights Act were hard won, hard fought for, and need to be protected.”
Media had a right to be concerned at such conditions, Ellis said.
The Parole Board noted in its decision: “On balance, this board is satisfied that Mr Lundy will not pose an undue risk to the safety of the community if released on parole on strict conditions designed to address his risk as well as assist in his reintegration and address victim concerns.”
Although Lundy’s parole conditions were imposed for life, he could apply to have his restrictions varied at any time, and he would have a monitoring hearing to check on his progress in October.
rnz.co.nz
