Offender told he had to be joking

Press, 3 August 1983, Page 4

Offender told he had to be joking

A young woman teller held up with a very realistic replica of a .45 Colt Commander pistol told the offender he had to be joking, sat with her arms folded and refused his demand to fill a bag with money, Mr Justice Hardie Boys was told in the High Court yesterday. His Honour jailed Peter Hendericks, aged 26, unemployed, formerly of Auckland, for nine months on one charge of attempted aggravated robbery and four of obtaining credit by fraud.

The prison term is to be followed by probation for a year.

Mr B. M. Stanaway appeared for the Crown and Mr K. J. Grave for Hendericks.

The police statement said that about 2.15 p.m. on Wednesday, July 6, Miss Nicola Kay Barltrop, aged 23, was the sole employee of the United Building Society office in Colombo Street when Hendericks approached the counter. In his right hand was a very realistic replica of a .45 Colt Commander pistol which he pointed at Miss Barltrop. He ordered her to fill a small bag he held in his left hand.

Miss Barltrop told Hendericks that he must be joking, sat with her arms folded and refused his command. He left but said that he would be back.

Late the next afternoon, Hendericks came to the attention of the police because of the credit by fraud offences. He had run up debts of $453 at hotels and motels in about three weeks and had left without paying. The policeman who interviewed Hendericks noted the similarity of his description with that of the person who had attempted to hold up the building society.

Hendericks has admitted that he committed that offence. He said that he normally resided with his parents in Auckland, but about three weeks before, he had left home and come to Christchurch where he had spent all his money. On the day of the offence, Hendericks said that he had

been walking along Colombo Street when he saw the office of the building society. On the spur of the moment, he decided to rob it. Hendericks claimed that the robbery was unplanned and said that he always carried that realistic pistol because it gave him security. An order for the forfeiture of the pistol was sought, the police statement said.

Mr Grave said that when Hendericks arrived from Auckland, he looked for work to pay for his accommodation, but was unable to find any. The four charges of obtaining credit by fraud involved $453 and he always intended to pay that sum. Hendericks became very depressed and while in that state attempted the hold up at the United Building Society office. The young woman refused to meet his demand and he left the premises with the threat that he would return. He did not do so. It was not a crime that would strike terror into the heart of the community, counsel said.

The woman provided a deterrent to the crime in which the elements of farce were noteworthy. After spending most of his life at home with his parents Hendericks left his last job on June 18. He had a good employment record, had worked as a factory supervisor and was highly regarded by his employer. For seven years, Hendericks had no convictions and his only offences were minor ones not involving assaults or violence. He was a skilled leather worker. The offence was motivated by survival and the probation officer had said that probation would be an appropriate penalty. The woman teller had made a fool of Hendericks.

A sentence of periodic detention would be appropriate, Mr Grave said. His Honour said that he had to take a serious view of the offence and a prison sentence was inescapable. “I think I would be failing in my duty if I accepted the submission of your counsel that a community-based sentence would be appropriate. Robbery is becoming almost commonplace and it is so destructive of the basis upon which people have become accustomed to live in this country,” said his Honour.

Robbery had to be punished severely if only to act as a deterrent to others who thought that it was a good way of making easy money. It was not an armed

robbery because it was not a real gun and that took it out of the more serious category. Nevertheless it was not a minor matter because the young woman whom he pointed the replica gun at was meant to think that it was a real weapon and had no reason to think otherwise, he said.

Hendericks was charged with attempted robbery and that reduced the seriousness but it was lucky for him that it was no more than an attempt. “The young lady in the office was very courageous and she deserves commendation. If she had been more timid you would probably have got the money and perhaps if you had been braver yourself you would have succeeded,” his Honour said.

The probation officer said that Hendericks had a good home background, had done well and had creative and artistic abilities. There was so much he could do with his life if he used his abilities in the right way. The offence was out of character, the probation officer said. He had been before the Court twice before, but it was a long time ago and those offences were obviously not very serious and could be largely disregarded.

It appeared to the probation officer that Hendericks was still a little immature and was living in a dream world and that could account to some extent for the crime of attempted aggravated robbery. It was also suggested by the probation officer that what Hendericks had done was motivated by survival and perhaps that was also the reason for the credit by fraud charges.

“It may well be that you were planning to earn money to pay these bills but you certainly incurred a fairly substantial amount in a fairly short period,” said his Honour.

A prison sentence had to be imposed. It was hard to learn a lesson but he hoped that it might help Hendericks get a better idea of his responsibilities, his Honour said.