Two sentenced on robbery charge

Press, 26 February 1986, Page 22

Two sentenced on robbery charge

It was “a tragedy” that Parliament "in its wisdom” had taken away the right of judges to sentence certain offenders to short prison terms followed by probation, said Mr Justice Holland in the High Court yesterday.

His Honour made the comment when sentencing Christopher Karl Churcher, aged 21, unemployed, on a joint charge of the aggravated robbery of a girl, aged 15.

A second man who appeared for sentence on, the,same charge, Michael Edward Norman, aged 24, unemployed, was jailed for 12 months, to be served concurrently with a sentence of years jail imposed last December on two charges of aggravated robbery and a charge of injuring with intent. Churcher was sentenced to two years probation and ordered to take such counselling and courses of treatment for drug and alcohol addiction as prescribed by his probation officer. The two men had been in custody since October last year after they had been arraigned by Justices of the Peace in the lower court. They each pleaded guilty after being arraigned.

Evidence had been given in the lower court that Norman and Churcher had gone to a house in St Albans to get drugs. They had been disturbed there by a girl, aged 15. Norman had held a knife at her throat while they took a video cassette recorder and three jackets. The girl was not physically harmed.

Miss E. H. B. Thompson appeared for Norman, Mr C. M. Ruane for Churcher,

and Mr G. K. Panckhurst for the Crown.

Miss Thompson said there was very little that could be said in mitigation for Norman. His explanation for the offence was that he was “not thinking straight” at the time, his mind being so affected by drugs. Norman was one of 10 prisoners at Paparua Prison who were undergoing group treatment for drug addiction under a new programme run by Odyssey House at the prison, said Miss Thompson.

Mr Ruane said there was no allegation that his client had. assaulted the complainant or made any demands on her. He had been in custody since early September. He was sentenced in late October on burglary charges.

His Honour said that he had to impose a sentence on Norman that reflected the totality of his offending because the offence for which he was being sentenced had occurred before he had been sentenced in December.

When sentencing Churcher, his Honour said that after reading his list of previous convictions, then reading his probation report, he wondered if he and the probation officer were referring to the same person. Churcher had three previous convictions for common assault, one for assaulting a traffic officer, and one for assaulting a constable on duty, yet the probation officer had reported that Churcher was not prone to resorting to violence. How that could be said, he did not understand, his Honour said. On October 15 Churcher had been convicted on

burglary charges. He had been released after serving the sentence and was in custody awaiting sentence for the aggravated robbery offence. His Honour said that he was not happy about sending Churcher back to prison because it would not help him. It was a tragedy that he could not give Churcher a short prison term followed by probation. Parliament in its wisdom had taken away that judges’ right. Churcher was the third person this year of 10 who had appeared before him who had “cried out for help” after being released from prison.

Parliament had also made imprisonment a mandatory sentence for aggravated robbery, except in exceptional circumstances, his Honour said. He regarded this case as exceptional and would treat Churcher as having been dragged into the offence. His Honour said that the appropriate sentence was six months jail followed by two years probation or supervision but he was unable to impose that, therefore he would not send Churcher to prison. “I am chancing my arm with you,” he said.-

>His Honour said that a letter purporting to be from Churcher and written at the prison with the help of someone else and given to him did not appear to be in Churcher’s own words because the language was too academic, but the contents may have reflected what Churcher really meant.

His Honour said that he would be criticised “by everyone who sat at home being frightened by burglars.” Churcher could let him down, but if he did, the road he took then would lead him to prison. He said he wanted the probation officer to know that if Churcher breached any of the terms of his probation or offended in any way he considered it to be the officer’s duty to bring Churcher before the Court.