Mark Lundy has been declined parole today after serving his minimum term of 20 years for the August 2000 murders of his wife and daughter in Palmerston North.
The parole board were concerned about the lack of a safety plan for any release. Photo: RNZ / Sharon Lundy
He told the Parole Board he maintains his innocence and that he did not kill wife Christine, 38, and daughter Amber, 9, in their home.
The board said it was concerned about the lack of a safety plan, which had steps to take should a prisoner feel they could get in trouble, for any release.
Lundy said he couldn't develop one, because nothing could trigger him to reoffend given he was not guilty.
The board also told Lundy to do a treatment programme for alcohol, because it was concerned about the way he answered questions about his drinking.
Lundy is remembered for his public display of grief at Christine and Amber's funeral. He was arrested for their murders in 2001.
Now aged 63, Lundy was found guilty at a 2002 trial in Palmerston North, but his convictions were quashed by the Privy Council in 2013 and he was released on bail for about 18 months.
In 2015 he was again found guilty at a retrial in Wellington, after which his life sentence and 20-year minimum term were reimposed.
At Tongariro Prison near Tūrangi today, Lundy was asked by the Parole Board about his safety plan if he were released.
"I have not committed any offence. It's rather difficult to do a safety plan for something I haven't done," he said.
Asked what he expected from the hearing, Lundy said: "I've got absolutely no idea. I've never been to a parole board before. I'd like a [release] date."
A board member told Lundy it saw him as being rightfully convicted.
Lundy said if he had admitted to the murders, he would have been released a long time ago.
"I vehemently deny the offence because I did not do it, and there's nothing I can say to alleviate that for you."
Lundy's lawyer QC Julie-Anne Kincade told the Parole Board he should be released.
She cited seven reasons, including that he had no prison misdemeanours in 20 years behind bars across five prisons; no other convictions or history of violence; a low risk of going to prison again; and a positive report from a psychologist.
The most persuasive argument was that while on bail from October 2013 to March 2015, Lundy did not breach his conditions, she said.
The Parole Board asked him about the large amount of alcohol he drank when he was younger.
"I don't deny I was a heavy drinker," he said.
Among his social circle, he was in the mid range and was always around people who drank.
During his retrial, he made the decision to stop drinking, even when around others who were, and said this caused no problems.
On the night of the murders, Lundy said he consumed a third of a bottle of rum in his Petone motel room.
More generally, he was involved in the Palmerston North Operatic Society and Scouts, which had heavy-drinking cultures.
"It was just the way it was back then," he said. "There were those in the operatic society that drank a damn sight more than me."
A board member noted some would have consumed less alcohol and asked Lundy why he drank more.
"It's not something I've ever thought about," Lundy said.
When denying parole, the board asked Lundy to complete a treatment programme for alcohol, because they were concerned about his answers to questions about this.
He was also asked to develop a safety plan for a release, with input from a psychologist.
The board asked him why he did not have such a plan already, when other prisoners did.
"These people all have triggers. I have not offended, so no triggers."
He had a place to stay at if released, but reporting restrictions of parole hearings mean the location cannot be disclosed.
Lundy said he could add a safety plan to his release plan.
When asked about Lundy not having a safety plan, a prison officer at the hearing said Lundy maintaining his innocence meant it was difficult to formulate one.
"[It] wasn't something on our radar."
Lundy said he had changed his mind about release conditions that might be imposed.
"Ten years ago, I decided I would never appear before a Parole Board and I would die in prison an old man."
He now thought being subjected to conditions was better than being kept inside.
In jail, he has been doing carpentry, following in the footsteps of his late father. He said he was part of a team gaining accolades for its work.
Covid-19 concerns meant programmes to help prisoners reintegrate into the outside world were on hold, but Lundy cited a report which said he had good support, and he had been on some escorted leave from prison.
He coped well when on bail before his retrial.
Lundy was asked about dealing with media attention or situations which could pose a risk.
He said he media requests would be decided by his lawyer.
A risky situation could be if someone disagreed with his claims of innocence and confronted him. This happened once when he was on bail and was easily defused.
Lundy said he was not an argumentative person, and he would try to record any encounters to protect himself from false allegations, and report them to the Parole Board.
Lundy has dealt with some health problems and also spoke about wanting to re-establish links with the Anglican Church.
The community was 50-50 about its support for him, but he had friends and family who would stick by him, he said.
Lundy said he did not remember Christine and Amber's funeral. He was a psychological mess on the day.
He was an emotional person and his biggest regret was not getting the funeral service recorded.
He had thought a lot about whether he would find work, but was restricted by physical limitations.
"Psychologically, I want to do it. Physically, I am not able."
Lundy said he had plans to make items out of wood and sell them but would not borrow money.
When asked about Lundy, the prison staff at the hearing said his behaviour was exemplary, and he showed "pride and passion" in his carpentry work.
After the hearing, his sister Caryl Jones said: "We plan for the best, expect the worst, which is nothing out of the ordinary, and today's no different.
"We support and love Mark and will always be there for him."
In a statement, Kincade said it was her experience that parole was frequently declined due to agency failures, "such as treatment needs being identified at a very late stage and-or courses not being provided in a timely way".
"It is very disappointing if, on top of that sort of failure, more basic preparation has also not been provided for the board's assistance, such as the prisoner safety and-or release plan, which should be prepared by Corrections staff working with the prisoner well in advance of a hearing.
"Whilst Covid is often cited now as a reason for failures, this is by no means a new problem, and one that has blighted many parole applications in the past."
Lundy's 2002 convictions were based on a Crown case that gave him slightly under three hours to return from a business trip in Wellington in rush hour traffic on 29 August, 2000, kill Christine and Amber, and return to the capital by about 8.30pm.
The Crown argued Lundy had sex with a prostitute later that night to create an alibi.
The 2015 retrial heard a different case - that the murders happened later in the night, after the encounter with the prostitute.
At both trials, Lundy was linked to the scene by specks of brain tissue found on his polo shirt.
At the first trial, the Crown called as a witness Texan pathologist Dr Rodney Miller who used a then new technique called immunohistochemistry to identify the tissue as human.
At the retrial, the scientific evidence was based on analysis of messenger RNA, although the Court of Appeal later ruled this inadmissible.
The presence of Christine and Amber's DNA on the same area of shirt sealed Lundy's fate.
After the retrial, Lundy again appealed his convictions, but in 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that they stood.
Lundy's legal team then issued a statement, saying the fight to clear his name would not stop.
Lundy will be eligible for parole again in nine months.