New Zealand Man Ordered for Deportation After Parole Release

David Ngatokotoru Martin, a 45-year-old New Zealand national, has been ordered for deportation from Australia under the 501 law following his release from prison on parole. Martin was originally convicted for the murder of Luke Hankey in a New South Wales pub carpark in 2007. The immigration tribunal, which reviewed his appeal, ruled that Martin poses a significant risk of reoffending if released into the community, leading to the decision to deport him back to New Zealand, a country he has not lived in since 1988.

The Tragic Incident of 2007

On October 20, 2007, Martin and his partner, Lisa Mackett, were at the Bateau Bay Hotel in New South Wales when they drove through a crowded carpark. In a matter of seconds, Martin stabbed Luke Hankey through the heart and aorta with a screwdriver. Hankey was taken to the hospital but died shortly after. During the trial, Martin pleaded guilty to common assault but denied charges of murder and reckless wounding. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison, with a minimum parole period of 15 years.

Parole and Immigration Detention

Martin was released on parole in May 2025 and is now in immigration detention. He applied to the tribunal to appeal the cancellation of his visa, but the tribunal found that he lacks remorse and has not engaged in sufficient rehabilitation. The tribunal also emphasized that Mackett, who is currently prevented from contacting Martin due to parole conditions, would not be a positive influence on his behavior.

Deportation and Return to New Zealand

Despite Martin’s claim that he has no support network in New Zealand, the tribunal ruled that he would likely receive support as a returning prisoner under New Zealand's Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015. This has raised concerns about the potential risks Martin may pose upon his return to his home country.

While the decision to deport Martin is based on the assessment that he poses a threat to public safety, critics have raised questions about the adequacy of rehabilitation programs in Australian prisons and the effectiveness of parole systems in preventing recidivism. The case has reignited discussions about the balance between rehabilitation and public protection in the criminal justice system.