A teen robber has been sentenced to six years in prison after a judge said "enough's enough". Photo / via video
A teen robber has been sentenced to six years in prison after a judge said "enough's enough". Photo / via video
A teen involved in a smash-and-grab robbery of a Michael Hill Jewellers store has been given a “crushing” sentence, with the judge saying this kind of offending has become “endemic” and a strong message of deterrence needs to be sent.
Martin was one of a group of six who donned masks, hoods and sunglasses, took up weapons and, after stealing two getaway vehicles, robbed the Michael Hill Jewellers store at Bayfair, Mount Maunganui, in January. Martin was armed with a knife while he and his co-offenders smashed cabinets, threatened staff and left with nearly $280,000 worth of jewellery.
Martin was also involved in the robbery of Mananui Dairy in Whakatāne, where he’d kicked a victim in the head before stealing the cash register and tobacco products, using a stolen car as a getaway vehicle.
At his recent sentencing, Judge Thomas Ingram said the 18-year-old had a long and extensive criminal history and hadn’t been helped by any of the rehabilitation efforts made by the courts to date.
Martin had more than 20 convictions in the district court, along with a further 37 court appearances.
The judge said a point had been reached where “enough’s enough”.
“He has been before the court a great deal at 18, and to the extent the court has responsibility we’ve tried everything that can be tried and nothing has made the slightest difference.”
He said Martin showed no signs of rehabilitation and his offending kept going “on and on and on”.
There was also a wider message that needed to be sent.
“Unless or until the courts approach offending of this kind with significant deterrent sentences then the offending is likely simply to continue as it has done over the last few years.”
Michael Hill Bayfair was robbed in a similar smash-and-grab by another group of teens in early last year.
Martin’s lawyer Rachael Adams relentlessly advocated for him during sentencing.
She began by introducing Martin’s social worker as the only person in attendance at his sentencing, other than lawyers.
“It says something, sir, that the only two people present for Mr Martin are two paid professionals, even by the appalling standards which we see regularly in this jurisdiction, this is a terribly sad story.”
While she acknowledged the end result for Martin would be a term of imprisonment, and accepted the need for deterrence against aggravated robberies of this nature, she sought significant discounts for her client due to his age and background.
She pointed to his difficult start in life, which had almost certainly begun with the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome.
While she accepted he continued to reoffend, he had recently attended a restorative justice conference where he’d shown a “genuine flicker of acknowledgment that he’s harmed someone else”.
She submitted that with young offenders, it was important not to impose a sentence that was “crushing”, and said the end sentence of six years, suggested by the judge, would seem “incomprehensible” to an 18-year-old.
Judge Ingram said Buchanan’s record hadn’t been as extensive and it had got to a point where Martin’s age and difficult background needed to be overtaken by the need for deterrence and safety of the public.
Adams said she could not accept that at 18, it was too late for Martin.
“I cannot concede that the point has been reached at which there is no prospect of rehabilitation.”
Judge Ingram said there didn’t have to be “no prospect”, but it was best left to the Parole Board to determine when Martin had been sufficiently rehabilitated and was ready for reintegration.
Crown Solicitor Anna Pollett said reports associated with Martin’s background and mental state made for difficult reading.
“But this offending is just not stopping and the protection of our community against such offending means a sentence of imprisonment is inevitable, and it’s about the length of that sentence.”
Pollet said a pre-sentence report indicated Martin had a high risk of reoffending and a high risk of harm to others.
Martin had told a report writer he committed the robbery was because he’d had an argument with his girlfriend, felt angry and needed an outlet.
She acknowledged Martin had spent 80% of his adolescence in institutionalised care, but said the sentence must reflect the harm caused by the offending.
Pollett said the offending had caused significant distress to the staff members present.
There had been threats to members of the public who’d tried to intervene, and the offending had taken place mid-afternoon when lots of people were around, perhaps including those who had just finished the school day.
She said the impact of this sort of crime, and the fear, was obvious.
Judge Ingram said the time for any sort of leniency was over.
“We’ve reached a point where you need a sentence which will deter you and perhaps others from this kind of behaviour.”
The judge began with a starting point of six years for the Bayfair aggravated robbery and uplifted it by five years for the Mananui dairy robbery. By law, he couldn’t uplift it further for a Whakatāne Michael Hill burglary that had taken place earlier because Martin was 17 when that offending took place.
The judge made a further uplift of one year for the stolen cars used in the robberies, to reach an overall starting point of 12 years.
He didn’t reduce it for totality, as was sought by defence counsel due to Martin’s age, however, the judge took Martin’s age into consideration in his decision not to uplift the sentence further for Martin’s prior offending.
The judge applied a discount of 25% for guilty pleas, 5% for “limited” remorse, 10% for his age and 10% for his background.
The judge sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment, with no minimum non-parole period.
‘Endemic’ offending
Ram raids and smash-and-grabs of jewellery stores have hit the headlines repeatedly over the past few years.
Arthur Ashby, an 18-year-old who was part of group of armed thieves who stormed a Northland Michael Hill jewellery store and took more than $50,000 of products, was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment and will be required to go before the Parole Board for release.
Another 18-year-old, Te Peeti Melahkai Allen, was part of a group that targeted the Bayfair Michael Hill in March last year. He was sentenced to two years and 10 months in prison, which included uplifts for offending on bail and prior convictions, and discounts for his youth, guilty pleas and background.
Retail NZ’s chief executive Carolyn Young said dealing with youth offending was complex, and retailers trusted the justice system to impose appropriate sentences based on the circumstances, background and offending.
“I think when we’re talking about young people and their offending, it starts at the home and the support services we need to put around to ensure that young people have got the right support to make good decisions,” she said.
But she said that they’d seen a significant rise in crime year-on-year for the last few years and it had reached an “untenable level”.
She wasn’t sure if troubled young offenders had the ability to process potential consequences ahead of committing offences, so would wait to see if tougher sentences brought a reduction in retail crime.
However, she said it would give retailers some assurance that the stress and loss associated with this kind of offending was recognised by the courts.
“If someone gets six months for an aggravated robbery, where they’ve used weapons and terrorised staff and stolen expensive items, it doesn’t seem that there’s a balance. So after the fact, when something has occurred and someone’s been arrested, the stores are looking for something equivalent to the action that’s been taken.”
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.
