Two years jail for ‘vicious attack’

Press, 7 July 1977, Page 4

Two years jail for ‘vicious attack’

Two youths have beeni jailed for two years for what was described as a “vicious” attack on a young man—which put him in hospital for two weeks—when they robbed him of property valued at $470. In the Supreme Court yesterday, Mr Justice Roper imposd the sentence on Taane Kenneth Lett, aged 18, and Thomas Hiki, aged 20, who had pleaded guilty on arraignment to a charge of robbing Alexander Grant Paulin of a watch, coat and a wallet and contents on February 18. Evidence was given at the. taking of depositions in the Magistrate’s Court that Mr Paulin came from Oamaru to Christchurch to get a job. He withdrew $452 from his Post Office savings account and spent most of February 18 looking at cars. About 5 p.m. he went to the Embassy Hotel where he met a girl named Wendy. They later went to the Carlton Hotel with three other persons. Just before 10 p.m., Mr Paulin was confronted by a man who told him that Wendy was “his girlfriend.” She denied it. The man struck Mr Paulin, splitting his eyebrow, which needed, 10 stitches.

Mr Paulin went back to, Wendy’s flat. While he was) lying with her on a bed,) three men came into thel room, one of whom asked) for money “for his sick mother.” Mr Paulin’s watch, wallet and jacket were taken. When he protested he was kicked and punched. He fell to the floor, and was kicked in the chest, neck, and face. Mr M. J. Glue, for Hiki, said that he had to concede that the assault was serious.) Hiki was destitute, after) being released from Borstal) where he had met Lett. The) probation report said that Hiki had a sincere desire to reform. Hiki realised he had a weakness for liquor, and was under the influence of drink when he committed the offence. Both Hiki and Lett had been set up to commit the offence by another person. Hiki had a trade and the ability to work, Mr Glue said. Mr A. K. Grant, for Lett, said that there were other persons involved in the offence, including a person named John, who was the prime mover. Lett had taken part because in his own words he was “whacked out of his mind” on alcohol and drugs. j Lett was a victim of an

unhappy and unsatisfactory

.home. There had been con-) | diets with his step-father,) ) and he suffered from a per-' I sonality disability. ; Because of offences arising! |from gang conflicts, Lett had! been sent to Borstal, but this) was his first offence involving dishonesty. He preferred a prison sentence to Borstal,! where he had already served) two terms, said Mr Grant. His Honour said that the case involved a most vicious I attack on a young man, who (suffered bruising over two- | thirds of his face, as well as I multiple fractures of facial bones. He had spent two weeks in hospital, and would need further treatment. The accused then stole property from him valued at more than $4OO. He accepted that others were probably as seriously involved as the two pri-| soners. Both prisoners had sympathetic reports from their probation officers, and he accepted that both had their good points. There was little to chose between them, and both had ; served terms in Borstal for assault—Lett twice. Counsel had urged the imposition of a short jail term, but that was not appropriate. He bore in mind that they had spent five months in custody, his Honour said.