Jail for ‘mean, cowardly’ robbery

Press, 12 February 1982, Page 5

Jail for ‘mean, cowardly’ robbery

The public was entitled to protection from thuggery. Mr Justice Hardie Boys said in the High Court yesterday when sentencing a couple to imprisonment for what he described as a particularly mean and cowardly robbery. Pauro Waata Hohepa. aged 38. a driver, was jailed for two years and three months, and Sandra Marie Cordner, aged 33. an unemployed Australian. was sentenced to six months imprisonment. Hohepa and Cordner were found guilty by a jury on a charge of robbing Owen Joseph Rollet in a Christchurch motel on September 21. 1981.

Evidence was given that Mr Rollet. a North Canterbury high country fencing contractor, had come to Christchurch for supplies and was carrying a substantial sum of money. He met Hohepa and Cordner in Forresters Tavern and bought them drinks.

Later they arrived uninvited at his motel and he offered them a bottle of wine. Mr Rollet said that he was attacked by Hohepa with what he thought was a bottle and his nose was broken in two places. His wallet containing $lBOO was stolen and he spent the night in hospital.

Some of the money belonged to Mr Rollet’s partner and had to be repaid. Mr E. Bedo, for Hohepa. said his client appreciated that he faced a term of imprisonment. Hohepa had not gone to the motel with the premeditated intention of robbing the unfortunate Mr Rollet. It was only after he was awakened by Cordner that he struck Mr Rollet and the robbery was committed. It was not the case of a stranger being set upon by two persons, said Mr Bedb who submitted that the appropriate sentence was one of periodic detention with a substantial fine, half of which could be paid to Mr Rollet. Mr S. L. Kaminski, for Cordner, said that she had played no part in the assault on Mr Rollet. She abhorred violence. From the time of her arrest Cordner had expressed regret for what had happened and she had had the decency to apologise to Mr Rollet when he was at the Central Police Station to attend an identification parade. Cordner had only one previous conviction and that was for a comparatively minor offence of false pretence committed seven years

ago in Australia when she was under considerable financial pressure.

Because Cordner had been unable to raise bail she had spent four months and a half in custody awaiting trial while Hohepa had been free on bail. She had left Australia to get away from a bad environment ’ but had fallen in with bad companyin New Zealand. Her de facto husband had been sentenced to another term of imprisonment in Australia. Cordner wanted to return to Australia to take care of her children. She was not a hardened criminal. Mr Kaminski said. Mr N. W. Williamson, for the Crown, submitted that the robbery had been a serious crime’ and had to be viewed in the light of Hohepa's long record of previous convictions. He asked for a recommendation that Cordner be deported on completion of her sentence. His Honour said that Hohepa and Cordner had been rightly found guilty of what was’ a particularly mean and cowardly robbery. “I think it is quite clear that you took advantage of the friendliness and naivete of a lonely and foolish man. He was severely assaulted

and his money taken from him." his Honour said. He had considered counsel’s submissions, particularly those of Mr Bedo, but he thought that this type of offence demanded a sentence of imprisonment. “The public is entitled to look to the Court for some measure of protection against this type of thuggery." said his‘Honour. He agreed with Mr Williamson that the jury’s verdict and the way in which it was reached ‘left little room for doubt that they considered both prisoners had planned the crime. It was clear that Cordner was to be the means of the two of them getting into the motel and lulling the victim into a sense of security while Hohepa was to take his monev.

The proper penalty had to reflect not only their equal responsibility but also their differing personal backgrounds. Unfortunately, Hohepa was no stranger to the courts. He had served very long terms of imprisonment for crimes of violence and had committed various offences of dishonesty. Hohepa had the ability to work well and to maintain relationships. His tragedy

was that he had not learned to keep himself under control and to stay away from liquor.

“Your interest and the public interest require a substantial term of imprisonment." said his Honour.

Cordner had many personal problems and had come to New Zealand to escape from them. It was unfortunate that Cordner mixed in the same type of company in New Zealand as she had in Australia.

Because of her personal history, and the terms she had already spent in custody, and not because she was a woman, he thought that the lesser term was appropriate, said his Honour. He recommended in accordance with the Immigration Act that Cordner be deported at the expiry of her sentence.