R v Harrison [2017] NZDC 20461 (11 September 2017)

Last Updated: 24 March 2018

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH

CRI-2017-009-001777

[2017] NZDC 20461 THREE STRIKES WARNING

THE QUEEN

v

MATTHEW JOHN HARRISON

Hearing:	11 September 2017
Appearances:	B Hawes for the Crown A Garrett for the Defendant
Judgment:	11 September 2017

NOTES OF JUDGE D J L SAUNDERS ON SENTENCING

[1] Matthew Harrison, you pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated robbery. Both events occurred on 26 February this year. Given the convictions that will now be entered in relation to those charges you are subject to the three strikes law. You are now being given a warning about the consequences of another serious violence conviction. You will be given written notice outlining these consequences and what is the list of serious violent offences.

[2] If you are convicted of any serious violent offence other than murder committed after this warning and a Judge imposes a sentence of imprisonment then you will serve that sentence without parole or early release. If you are convicted of murder committed after this warning then you must be sentenced to life imprisonment. That will be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. In that event

R v MATTHEW JOHN HARRISON [2017] NZDC 20461 [11 September 2017]

the Judge must sentence you to a minimum term of imprisonment. That is the strike warning that I am obliged to give you. Of course the issue around parole for this particular sentence today is not affected and you will be eligible to see a Parole Board at one-third of the sentence I impose as I am not imposing any minimum non-parole period today.

[3] The offences which you have pleaded guilty to occurred in circumstances where you were trying to fund what I am told was a synthetic cannabis dependency. Clearly that is a need that will have to be addressed during the course of your sentence and I am told by Mr Garrett today that you have already been seeking help for that while you have been in custody. The offences involve two particular individuals who were responding to an advertisement thinking that they were going to obtain sexual services at a particular address. I have taken on board what Mr Garrett has said about the first statement that one of the complainant’s made and perhaps explained by the fact that he was put in a difficult situation to explain the loss of cellphone and cash but at the end result you have accepted that in both cases you did hold a knife and did make threats of violence and that you relieved them of not only cash but cellphones and made some threatening comments, I think the words used were that the person would be a ‘dead duck’ if there was a complaint.

[4] In the circumstances the Crown have said that this is a case which involved some aggravating circumstances, there was a degree of planning, albeit amateurish in a way, there was the suggestion that you had a disguise in that you had a bandanna or fabric over your face and there is the actual violence or threats of violence that occurred at the time of the offending.

[5] I had given you a sentence indication previously in relation to this offending and I indicated that a start point of in that range, four to five years, was appropriate. I have reflected on what I have had made available, including the pre-sentence report. The end result is that I come back to a sentence of three years six months imprisonment which will be imposed in relation to this offending. So that it is transparent as to how I have reached that I take the view that the starting point for the first offence in time would have been a term of three years' imprisonment. An additional two years, taking into account the totality principle, would have been appropriate for the second offence

on that day. That led to a starting point then of five years or 60 months before any adjustments. I have decided that there would be available to you a credit at 20 percent for the guilty pleas that were forthcoming after the sentence indication.

[6] From the 60 months that was, or five years, that I reached as a starting point, I have deducted the 13 months bringing it back to 47 months. I give a further credit of five months for the time you have spent in custody addressing the issues that have been raised by Mr Garrett and in relation to the sentence that has now expired. That time in custody will not be taken into account in assessing your parole eligibility but, again, approaching it on a totality basis it was appropriate that you should receive five months credit for that.

[7] The end result is that that comes back to three years six months and, as I have indicated, I do not intend that that be affected by a minimum non-parole period. The sentence imposed is certainly within the range that was given to you for a sentence indication and clearly the Parole Board will expect to see some evidence that you have addressed drug and alcohol issues while you have been serving this sentence.

[8] I impose that three years six months in respect of both of the offences on the record. The strike warning has been delivered to you. It is unlikely and unrealistic to expect you are going to be in a position to pay reparation in the foreseeable future and I decline to make any order in that regard. The sentence, therefore, imposed on each offence is three years six months but concurrent with each other.

D J L Saunders District Court Judge