Police v Roberts [2022] NZDC 9964 (31 May 2022)

Last Updated: 22 March 2023

EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT HAMILTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI KIRIKIRIROA

CRI-2021-019-003047

[2022] NZDC 9964

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Prosecutor v

JESSIE ROBERTS Defendant

Hearing:	31 May 2022
Appearances:	Sergeant S Leet for the Prosecutor G Boot for the Defendant
Judgment:	31 May 2022

NOTES OF JUDGE G S COLLIN ON SENTENCING

[1] Jessie, you are only 19 and you are here on 10 charges of burglary, one charge of attempted burglary and five of taking cars that you should not have done.

[2] When this happened, you were on a sentence of home detention for aggravated robbery which was given to you on 29 April in 2021. This series of robberies happened between 28 May 2021 and 17 June 2021. Most of them are what we know as ram raids done by a group of your friends or gang colleagues who are young teenagers or young adults. You were operating in a youth gang which was referred to as H-Town 07.

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v JESSIE ROBERTS [2022] NZDC 9964 [31 May 2022]

[3] The summary of facts sets out what happened. I do not intend to go through them all but most of them involved stealing a car or cars, driving one of those cars through the window of a shop, smashing the window and doors. A group of you would then run into the shop and take a whole lot of things and then leave in another car.

[4] This happened at:

• (a) [Business 1] where a whole lot of electronic items were taken, and a white Honda was left inside the shop.
  
• (b) [Business 2] where a car was stolen and driven right into the shop and a whole lot of jewellery then taken. We know that $60,000 of damage was caused to that shop.
  
• (c) [Business 3] where a car was driven into the shop and cell phones and other things like that were taken.
  
• (d) [Business 4] store where a car was driven through the glass window of the shop and then a whole lot of stuff was taken out of the shop by you and others. The car was left in the shop and you left in another car.
  
• (e) [Business 5] where you tried to do that same thing, but you could not get into the shop and you left in a vehicle that was stolen.
  
• (f) [Business 6] where a glass door was kicked in, and a cash register, donation box and other items were taken. You left in a stolen vehicle.
  
• (g) [Business 7] in Cambridge where the glass door was broken, and clothing was taken. You left in a stolen vehicle.
  
• (h) [Business 8] in Flagstaff where a white Subaru was driven into the shop and then cash, and Red Bull was taken.
  
• (i) [Business 9] where glass doors were smashed but you did not get in.

• (j) [Business 10] where a Subaru was driven into the front of the store and a large amount of clothing and cash was taken and placed in another stolen vehicle.
  
  • (k) Finally, [business 11]. Two cars were stolen. One was driven into the windows, you got inside, took bottles of whiskey and vodka and left.
    

[5] On each occasion you were with other people. I am not told that anyone else has been sentenced. Most of those that that have been charged will appear in the Youth Court.

[6] I do not know how much damage was done, because the police do not have an amount, but I do know that damage to the jewellery shop window was $60,000. The total damage done by you and the others would be hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think there were some 10 burglaries and seven or eight of those were ram raids. The damage could be in excess of $200,000 or $300,000.

[7] The burglaries are bad, but also most of them involved cars that were stolen and driven through the windows of stores. Those cars will have been damaged. The damage to those cars would have been many, many thousands potentially more than

$100,000.

[8] That is the background. The harm done by you to businesses, some of them small, some of them major, but all of them damaged, is really significant. There are a lot of victims. The owners of the cars, the owners of the shops, the people that worked there are also victims. It affects their business and their livelihood. It impacts their sense of security. They do not know what is going to happen next. It upsets them.

[9] The ram raids were deliberate, planned offending. You knew what you were doing, planned it with some mates, stole cars to do it, you went together, you knew exactly what was happening. All of the burglaries involved commercial premise. All of them occurred at night, some of them in the very early hours of the morning. The only good thing that can be said is that no one was injured, nor was there any confrontation or fight with any of the owners.

[10] You have been charged with burglary. The definition of burglary is very wide. At one end there are minor burglaries where you go somewhere when you have been trespassed. At the other end, the highest end of commercial burglaries, are ram raids. Your offending is at the highest end of commercial burglaries. Each one carries a maximum term of important of 10 years. As an aggravating feature, as I have already said, they involved the theft of cars and the damage caused to them as well.

[11] What I must do first is figure out a starting point. That is what the sentence should be that reflects all the burglaries or ram raids that you did. Mr Boot has said that I should start at four years. I told him that I did not think that is high enough. I have not changed my mind. A global sentencing point needs to be adopted that reflects the totality of the burglaries and offending.

[12] In determining the starting point I have regard to cases of R v Makimae – that was six burglaries and unlawfully taken and an assault with a weapon which was an aggravating feature and involved two ram raids.1 The starting point in that case was five years six months. R v Crombie – again ram raids but not as many, the starting point was five years and six months.2 There are some others that I was referred to, R v Waikato – again ram raids, a starting point of two years nine months and R v Ngawhita – the starting point there was five years.3

[13] In determining the starting point, I have regard to firstly the number of ram raids. Secondly, the amount of damage, which was a lot. Thirdly, the fact that you planned it, it was premeditated. Fourthly, the impact on the owners of the businesses and premises and cars. Fifthly, that it was part of a gang operation. Sixthly, the public interest and concern regarding this kind of offending, the need to protect the community, the need to denounce which is to say that it is wrong. Finally, to hold you accountable and to deter, in other words to try and prevent other people doing it, it is to send a message which is as part of the purposes of sentencing.

1 R v Makimae [2017] NZDC 10429.

2 R v Crombie CRI-2011-092-019593 [4 September 2012].

3 R v Waikato [2021] NZDC 18385; and R v Ngawhita [2017] NZDC 8890.

[14] When I consider all those matters, I reach a starting point of five and a half years. I then must consider aggravating factors, and I uplift the sentence by a further six months. This is because of your history of offending which includes aggravated robberies. I accept that they were in the Youth Court but still they are there. I note also that you did this when you were on home detention. That leaves a sentence of six years.

[15] I then must consider whether I should reduce that, make the sentence less. This is for mitigating factors, things in your favour. You pleaded guilty; you are entitled to 25 per cent off for your plea of guilty. You have expressed remorse which I accept as genuine and for your remorse you get another five per cent. You were 18 when this occurred, you are now 19, you are young. The probation report tells me only a little bit about your background. It describes you as having multiple basic needs.

[16] I have read Judge Clark’s judgment supplied to me by Mr Boot. It tells me more about you. Your upbringing was bad, and your parents were not good. They are part of the reason for your offending. That is a tragedy. In your younger life you were exposed to alcohol, drugs and criminal offending. From what I can understand from Judge Clark’s judgment, one or other of your parents might have been in prison. They were a bad example to you and bad parents. They are part of the reason why you are where you are. Unsurprisingly, because of that when you were young you lived a chaotic lifestyle and that has continued. You abused drugs when you were young. It is suggested in Judge Clark’s judgment that because your mum was drinking when she was pregnant, you have Foetal Alcohol Syndrome and we know that this impacts children (it is not funny at all).4 We know that impacts how you are, what happens to you, it affects your brain.

[17] You are entitled to some further discount because of the disadvantages of your background, your poor parenting, your youth and all of the other factors that have led you to be in the position that you are in. I assess in total a further discount of 20 per cent. In total that means I discount your sentence by 50 per cent.

4 This comment was made to a whanau supporter of Mr Roberts who was seated at the back of the Court and was smiling and laughing at the comment that Mr Roberts’ mother was drinking when she was pregnant.

[18] The end sentence is a term of imprisonment of three years. That sentence will be imposed on each of the burglary charges.

[19] In respect of the charges involving the theft of motor vehicles you will be sentenced on each one to one year’s imprisonment. All terms of imprisonment are to be served concurrently, in other words at the same time.

[20] The end sentence is a term of imprisonment. You go to prison for three years.

[21] There is no point at all in ordering reparation. You will be in prison for some time. You are not working. It is impossible for you to pay anything to the costs that have been incurred. No order for reparation is made.

Judge GS Collin

District Court Judge | Kaiwhakawā o te Kōti ā-Rohe

Date of authentication | Rā motuhēhēnga: 18/06/2022