• - A coroner says murder of Christchurch woman, suicide of previous victim’s father ‘could have been prevented’
• - Corrections risk-management process ‘contributed’ to the deaths
• - Crucial information about killer’s level of psychopathy was not known to Parole Board
• - Extensive recommendations made to improve processes, save future lives
• - Changes include more information for employers, staff about risk of criminal colleagues
• - Victim’s mum angry ‘no one held accountable’, says “everyone has blood on their hands”

A coroner has ruled that a “breakdown” in Corrections’ risk management process of an already convicted killer “contributed” to the murder of Christchurch woman Nicole Tuxford and the connected suicide of West Coast man Gary Schroder.

And Coroner Marcus Elliott said the “actual level of psychopathy” of Tuxford’s killer - a convicted murderer on parole - was unknown to the Parole Board when it granted his release.

Coroner Elliott concluded both tragic deaths “could have been prevented” and he has recommended significant changes to Corrections practices and the Parole Act in a bid to avoid similar deaths in future.

Paul Tainui - formerly Wilson - lay in wait for eight hours overnight to murder Nicole Marie Tuxford, 27, inside her own home in 2018.

He was on parole at the time after being convicted of murdering his former girlfriend Kimberly Schroder in Hokitika 24 years earlier.

Soon after Gary Schroder, 67, was told his daughter’s killer had murdered another young woman he took his own life.

A joint inquest spanning 2022 and 2023 found the central issues being the Department of Corrections’ identification and management of the risk of reoffending.

Coroner Elliott’s findings - spanning 104 pages - were released today.

“Kimberley Schroder and Nicole Tuxford died due to the criminal actions of Paul Tainui. His crimes also led to the death of Gary Schroder who, his heart and spirit broken, took his own life,” he said.

“These findings address whether Mr Tainui’s crimes might have been predicted or prevented.”

Nicole Tuxford. Photo / File

Coroner Elliott said his findings would be “deficient” without reference to “the many acts of kindness shown” to the killer by his victims.

That included Schroder and her mother visiting him in prison when he was convicted of assault in 1992 and “out of sympathy, and believing him to be remorseful” the family helping him when he was released.

“It was kindness once again which prompted (his boss) to employ Mr Tainui, to give him an opportunity, despite knowing about his past.

“Due to her kindness and goodness of heart, Ms Tuxford chose to see the potential for good in Mr Tainui. She believed he deserved a second chance.”

Coroner Elliott said the words of Schroder’s parents to the Parole Board in 2010 proved to be prophetic.

“No matter how much psychiatric treatment this man receives, he will never change,” they said.

“We know he will re-offend again, it’s just a matter of when.

“He will always be a danger to society.”

Families react: anger, heartbreak and disappointment still raw

Tuxford’s mother Cherie Gillatt said the report was “absolute bulls**t”.

“He should never have been left to his own devices,” she said of Tainui.

“He never should have been locked away forever after he murdered Kimberly, never to come out.

“My Nicole would still be alive if these people had done their jobs properly.”

Cherie Gillatt (left) says the inquest findings are "bulls**t". Photo / Dean Purcell

Gillatt said she was “angry and heartbroken” and felt no one had actually been held to account.

“This was a dangerous individual - we didn’t need to know he was a ‘psychopath’ to know that. I still think a lot more could have been done,” she said.

“Everyone has blood on their hands... all of them.”

Gillatt fought for an inquest for her daughter, and said it was a harrowing and traumatising process but she had no regrets.

“I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy... but I owed it to my Nicole to fight, to turn over every stone... I saw stuff a mother should never see... I had to be her voice,” she said.

“If I hadn’t done this we would never have been the wiser. I can see why people don’t do it - the heartache and the stress are prolonged... But I will be Nicole’s voice for as long as I can.

“It never should have happened... it makes me sick. I hope that b*****d (Tainui) rots.”

Schroder family spokesperson Jenny Keogan said the end of the coronial process was a relief.

“It’s been 30 years for us, it’s been a long journey,” she said.

“We’re really happy with the findings, for the simple fact that an acknowledgment has been made that there were failings within government agencies.

“We are disappointed there couldn’t be any individuals (held accountable) that we felt should have been. But ultimately for us this is about changes that have been recommended - that there’s a lot more communication, better support and more knowledge about offenders before they go into the workplace.

“There are so many things that they could have done differently… and we would have lost two more lives.

“We can’t bring back Kimmy and Gary and Nicole and we’re not naive enough to think this won’t continue to happen - but if appropriate measures can be put in place to save lives… the what we get out of this is some peace in knowing that even though we’ve had significant loss… that some good can come out of this.”

Police at the scene of Tuxford's murder. Photo / Kurt Bayer

Coroner Elliott explained the two main topics addressed at the inquest were the adequacy of information provided to the Parole Board before the release of Tainui and his post-release management by Corrections.

Tainui was working under the Pathway Trust, engaged by his probation officer to support him back into employment after a previous job ended.

Coroner Elliott acknowledged the efforts of Corrections and Pathway employees who, “in good faith, did their best to help Mr Tainui assume a place as a law-abiding 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.”

The first issue: Did the Parole Board have adequate information?

“After he murdered Ms Tuxford in 2018, Mr Tainui was identified by psychopathy testing as a criminal psychopath,” revealed Coroner Elliott.

“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.”

Coroner Elliott said the earlier test - “administered in an appropriate way” - was based on information derived from Tainui’s time in prison - an “entirely different” environment to the one in which his “psychopathy manifested in criminal action.

“Mr Tainui appeared to be a compliant prisoner and this was corroborated by the evidence on his prison file… (he) would have done whatever he considered necessary to gain parole, including conducting himself in such a way as to lead everyone to believe he was remorseful for his previous offending and would not re-offend.”

He said while the psychologists and Parole Board would have been aware of this, they did not have access to “the one piece of information which was determinative” - what exactly was going on in the offender’s mind.

Paul Russell Wilson aka Tainui was a groomsman at David Bain's wedding after the pair became friends in prison. Photo / NZH

“As a result, Mr Tainui’s actual level of psychopathy remained unidentified before he was released on parole,” Coroner Elliott concluded.

“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.”

Coroner Elliott noted psychopathy testing was only one part of an overall risk assessment of an offender - and even with all information considered the process “may not identify that a person will reoffend”.

“The risk assessment process in this case correctly identified that Mr Tainui would not re-offend within five years. It correctly identified the particular area of heightened risk,” he said.

“However, it did not identify that he was a criminal psychopath who was at chronic risk of committing extremely callous and brutal crimes even seven years after release.”

The Coroner said a risk assessment “does not amount to a prediction” and it was important to highlight the limitations of the process generally.

“And although the odds are low it is unfortunately inevitable that, at some point in the future, a murderer will be released on parole and murder again.”

The second issue: Corrections’ post-release risk management

From the day of his release, Tainui’s probation officers were “aware” of the risks he posed.

“However, for the reasons explained above, they were not aware he was a criminal psychopath,” he said.

“When Mr Tainui started work... his probation officer at that time was aware that the risk of re-offending was greatest in the context of potential or actual intimate relationships with women.”

The probation officer told the coroner he had told Tainui’s employer that the specific concern about him was not directly within a supported work environment - but within his intimate relationships.

The employer’s recollection of the conversation differed and “did not reflect an awareness that intimate relationships represented an area of risk or that she should inform the probation officer of any concerns about this”.

“The essential point is that this verbal interaction, which was unaccompanied by any written follow-up, did not leave the employer with a clear understanding of the need to monitor Mr Tainui’s potential or actual intimate relationships and to inform Corrections about them,” Coroner Elliott said.

“Nor was the employer left with an appreciation of the potential importance of alerting employees - particularly female employees - to this area of risk and to gather information from them which could, in turn, be passed on to Corrections for their ongoing risk assessments.”

It was at this company Tainui met Tuxford.

Paul Tainui murdered Nicole Tuxford while he was on parole for killing another woman. Photo / Dean Purcell

Coroner Elliott said there was “ample evidence” he “developed feelings towards her and wanted to have an intimate relationship with her”.

A number of employees were aware of his feelings and actions towards her - including sending her flowers at work - but the company directors were not.

“Given that Corrections was communicating with a director and that the directors remained unaware of the importance of this type of information; and that their employees had not told them about it - it was not passed onto Corrections,” said the Coroner.

“Another consequence of this state of affairs was that Ms Tuxford was not in a position to make an informed decision about how to relate to Mr Tainui or indeed whether to relate to him at all beyond the usual courtesies of the workplace.

“She remained unaware of the specific area of risk which was known to Corrections. She also did not know he was a criminal psychopath.”

Coroner Elliott said Tainui was “regularly asked about relationships” by his probation officers and “volunteered information” about “potential or actual intimate relationships” - he never mentioned Tuxford,

Statements from Tainui’s colleagues revealed that by March 2018 his feelings about her had become “sinister”.

A colleague said by April 5 he was “ranting” about Tuxford at work.

“His face was like thunder... his eyes were dark and he just sounded really angry. I had never seen his face like this before,” they told the Coroner.

Days later, Tuxford was dead.

“Mr Tainui would have realised that, if he told Corrections or Pathway Trust about Ms Tuxford, and especially about his increasing anger and resentment towards her, it would have resulted in an application to recall him to prison,” said Coroner Elliott.

“His decision to refrain from telling them about Ms Tuxford was undoubtedly a calculated one.”

The inquest was held at Christchurch's Justice Precinct. Photo / George Heard

The inquest heard Corrections’ post-release management process recognised that the majority of people “underreport or minimise behaviour associated with risk”.

“Scrutiny of Mr Tainui’s assertions or omissions by obtaining information from other sources was therefore an essential requirement of the risk management process,” Coroner Elliott stated.

“Corrections was responsible for managing the risk that Mr Tainui would re-offend. This included responsibility for identifying the risk, monitoring it and taking steps to address areas of increased risk.

“The risk management process broke down because the probation officers, who did not know Mr Tainui was a criminal psychopath, did not have crucial information relating to an area of identified risk, namely Mr Tainui’s feelings about and actions towards Ms Tuxford.

“If Corrections had this information, a recall application would have been made. It is likely that this would have resulted in Mr Tainui returning to prison.

“However, even if it did not, steps could still have been taken to minimise the ongoing risk to Ms Tuxford.”

Coroner Elliott said the “breakdown in Corrections’ risk management process” resulted in three fatal situations.

“Mr Tainui, who harboured increasingly sinister feelings towards Ms Tuxford, remained at large,” he said.

“His probation officers were unaware of the risk to Ms Tuxford and therefore took no steps to address it. (And) Ms Tuxford remained unaware of the extent of the risk.

“In the absence of any action to address the acute risk to Ms Tuxford, Mr Tainui raped and murdered her.

“While Mr Tainui was responsible for her death, the breakdown in Corrections’ risk management process contributed.”

Coroner Elliott said the breakdown was “a consequence of a systemic issue”.

“Namely the absence of a process for Corrections to obtain risk-related information from the employees at an offender’s workplace.”

The recommendations: How can future lives be saved?

Coroner Elliott made a detailed recommendation for a significant change in processes around the risk management of offenders.

The changes included - for each offender - the production of a detailed, written description of potential risks and what information should be reported to Corrections by third parties.

That document should then be provided to the offender and, if they consented, to any prospective employer, employees or contractors they would be working with and any other source Corrections deemed relevant.

The document should explain that information about the offender could be passed on to their probation officer at any time without them being forewarned.

If an offender did not consent to the document being provided to relevant people, their employment would not proceed.

Coroner Elliott said Corrections should carefully consider where it was possible that risk could manifest in a workplace and in that workplace - who should receive the document.

Recipients should then be provided with a mechanism to report any issue to Corrections confidentially and the agency should engage with them “regularly”.

It was also recommended Corrections consider providing that document to any of the offender’s, family, friends or associates who could provide verifying information about any risk.

Parole Board chair Sir Ron Young. Photo / Aaron Smale, IKON Media, File

Coroner Elliott was also asked by the Parole Board to recommend amendments to the Parole Act 2002, enabling it to exercise its post-release monitoring function for a longer period.

“The board submitted that these suggested amendments would enable (it) to have greater post-release monitoring powers over offenders and could reduce the chances of death in circumstances similar to those in which Nicole Tuxford was murdered,” said the coroner.

“At a minimum, it would have meant that Mr Tainui was required to account to the Parole Board as well as to his probation officer. This may have resulted in the identification of additional risk, it may have prevented Ms Tuxford’s death. A recommendation may reduce the chances of death in similar circumstances.”

Coroner Elliott made the recommendation and said the Secretary for Justice and chief executive of the Department of Corrections supported the “intent” and further consideration would be undertaken.

“The extensive evidence canvassed at the inquest and in these findings, and the comments and recommendations I make, have resulted from the efforts of the Tuxford and Schroder families to ensure that the risk assessment and post-release management of Mr Tainui were thoroughly scrutinised,” said Coroner Elliott.

“I acknowledge the courage they have shown throughout the coronial inquiries and express my great sorrow for their losses.”

In a statement on behalf of the Department of Corrections, deputy chief executive of communities, partnerships and pathways Sean Mason expressed their “heartfelt condolences” to the family and friends of Nicole Tuxford, Kimberley Schroder and Gary Schroder.

“No family should ever have to experience the unimaginable pain brought about by the serious and devastating offending of Paul Tainui,” he said.

“I acknowledge the ongoing suffering they have experienced and the courage and commitment that they have shown in their work to prevent other families from experiencing losses like theirs.”

Corrections is working through the recommendations made by the Coroner, Mason said, and is considering a number of changes including:

• - Exploring the New Zealand Parole Board having post-release monitoring powers for a longer period of time and enabling Probation Officers to initiate applications to the Parole Board to conduct a monitoring or progress hearing under section 29(2)(b)
• - Improving information sharing between employers and Corrections in practice
• - Improving existing guidance for probation officers on engaging with employers
• - Enhancing training for staff on several topics, including manipulation and deception training

“I know all of the staff involved, and the wider department, will always ask what more could have been done to prevent this horrific tragedy from occurring,” he added.

“We are committed to learning from the findings in the Coroner’s report and making changes to help prevent these events happening in the future.”

Anna Leask is a Christchurch-based reporter who covers national crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2008 and has worked as a journalist for 18 years with a particular focus on family and gender-based violence, child abuse, sexual violence, homicides, mental health and youth crime. She writes, hosts and produces the award-winning podcast A Moment In Crime, released monthly on nzherald.co.nz