Corrections failed to identify risk of psychopath: inquest
PAUL Tainui was showered with kindness and repaid it by brutally raping and murdering two young women.
The criminal psychopath’s actions also directly contributed to a third death — the father of one of his victims.
Coronial findings released yesterday showed Tainui — born Paul Wilson — misled and lied to those trying to help him reintegrate into society, following more than 16 years behind bars. Tainui was jailed after raping and murdering his former girlfriend Kimberley Schroder in 1994 and was later a groomsman at David Bain’s wedding after the pair served time in prison together.
Seven years after his release, Tainui raped and murdered Nicole Tuxford in her Christchurch home on April 7, 2018.
Heartbroken by the news his daughter’s murderer had killed again, Gary Schroder killed himself less than 72 hours later. Following Ms Tuxford’s murder, Tainui was identified as a criminal psychopath. However, testing in 2010 ahead of his parole failed to indicate psychopathy and found Tainui a low risk of reoffending.
Coroner Marcus Elliott held a joint inquest into the deaths of Ms Tuxford and Mr Schroder, finding Corrections failed to identify the acute risk to Ms Tuxford’s life at the time of her death because of a systemic issue with the department’s processes. Ms Tuxford was born and bred in Dunedin and moved to Christchurch to pursue her professional career after she finished high school.
The coroner investigated whether there were any fundamental flaws that meant Tainui’s criminal psychopathy was missed by testing in 2010. He found the personality disorder and testing for it was complex and not every psychopath presented as ‘‘Hannibal Lecter’’.
‘‘There was evidence that some people can be more psychopathic in some settings at some times and less in others. In addition, people with high levels of psychopathy can ‘adapt’ such that they live without displaying
antisocial behaviour and show little evidence of some psychopathic traits.
‘‘Against this background, I have concluded that the 2010 psychopathy test was administered in an appropriate way and the psychologist’s assessment of risk was reasonable based on the evidence available at that time.
‘‘As a result, Mr Tainui’s actual level of psychopathy remained unidentified before he was released on parole.
‘‘The effect of this was that neither the Parole Board nor the probation officers who subsequently managed Mr Tainui received a crucial piece of information, namely that he was a criminal psychopath, albeit one who was ‘adapting’ while in prison.
‘‘This unsatisfactory situation illustrates that, even if competently administered, psychopathy testing is a limited, and in the case of Mr Tainui, inadequate, tool to assess the risk of reoffending.
‘‘It was inadequate in this case because, despite being competently administered, it did not identify that Mr Tainui was a psychopath.’’
The coroner assessed whether changes to psychopathy testing could have detected Tainui’s personality disorder and his management by Corrections. ‘‘The rape and murder of Ms Schroder were the actions of a criminal psychopath.
‘‘Mr Tainui must have had the traits of a psychopath when he was assessed in 2010 at the request of the Parole Board. ‘‘However, the psychopathy test result was well below a level indicating psychopathy and Mr Tainui was considered to be at a low risk of reoffending [other than in relation to a specific set of circumstances].’’
He ultimately found psychopathy testing was just one tool in the risk assessment for an offender. But risk assessment was not a prediction and no tool could ever totally safeguard against reoffending.
While he did not make any recommendations in relation to psychopathy testing or risk assessment, the coroner emphasised the importance of psychologists using psychopathy testing remaining conscious of its limitations.
He recommended the Department of Correction’s chief executive and justice secretary consider providing advice to relevant ministers about amending the Parole Act to give the Parole Board greater powers and an extended period of monitoring for offenders.
He also recommended Corrections amend its management of offenders so specific areas of risk were identified and shared with employers and coworkers where necessary.
Any account of the circumstances of the deaths of Ms Schroder, Ms Tuxford and Mr Schroder would be deficient without reference to the many acts of kindness shown to Tainui, the coroner said.
‘‘It was kindness which led to Ms Schroder and her mother visiting him in prison when he was convicted of assault in 1992. ‘‘Out of sympathy, and believing him to be remorseful, Mr and Mrs Schroder helped him after he was released, allowing him to stay with them on the night of his release and engaging him to do some work for them. Two years later, Mr Tainui raped and murdered their daughter.
‘‘It was kindness once again which prompted . . . [his employer] to employ Mr Tainui, to give him an opportunity, despite knowing about his past. ‘‘Due to her kindness and goodness of heart, Ms Tuxford, a 27yearold woman, chose to see the potential for good in Mr Tainui . . . She believed he deserved a second chance. Mr Tainui raped and murdered her, following which Mr Schroder took his own life.
‘‘It is also only fair to acknowledge the efforts of the employees of the Department of Corrections and Pathway Trust who, in good faith, did their best to help Mr Tainui assume a place as a lawabiding member of the community and to identify and manage the risks he presented, a task made much more difficult by the fact that, by his own admission, he lied to them and misled them.’’
Victim advocate Ruth Money — who worked with the Tuxford and Schroder families — largely accepted Mr Elliott’s findings and recommendations.
‘‘They identify that there were certainly some holes in the whole process and the Department of Corrections had some things to work on. So we’re glad that he has identified them.
‘‘You’ve got to verify the information you’re getting or not getting and people need to prove that they’re trustworthy.’’