Probation report called ‘unrealistic’

Press, 12 September 1986, Page 22

Probation report called ‘unrealistic’

Mr Justice Holland and defence counsel, Mrs Deidre Orchard, in the High Court agreed that a probation report recommending that a man convicted of aggravated robbery should be given a com-munity-based sentence was extraordinary, surprising, unrealistic and lacking in balance. Damien Lee Hallett, aged 22, was jailed for two years for the knifepoint robbery of a man in the car-park of the Sandridge Hotel. He pleaded guilty to the charge on arraignment. Hallett’s co-offender, who had a charge of robbery reduced to theft because of lack of evidence, was jailed for nine months, which made the probation officer’s recommendation all the more extraordinary, his Honour said. Mr Raoul Neave appeared for the Crown. Mrs Orchard said that about 11 p.m. on November 8 Hallett accosted a man in the hotel car-park and put a headlock on him. He was dragged behind a wall and a knife was held against his throat. The victim’s wallet, containing $l2, was taken by his female companion. The man was then taken back to the carpark where the other man took over, and he was forced to hand over his shirt, belt and a cigarette lighter. The offenders left in a vehicle, but were apprehended a short time later in the Square. Hallett’s only explanation was that he had been drinking and he committed the robbery on impulse. He had little recollection of the event and expressed his regret There was no injury to the victim apart from having his head banged against the wall, Mrs Orchard said. When counsel commented on the recommendation for a communitybased sentence in the probation report, his Honour said that the report was an extraordinary document “What is there to show that this man is showing signs of reformation?” he asked. He had been jailed for three months for breach of periodic detention. Mrs Orchard said that the probation officer was

totally unrealistic in the recommendation. His Honour replied that he was far from impressed by what was said by the probation officer. ; ' Mrs Orchard replied that because of lack of balance, the report would 4 do Hallett more harm than good. Recently he had jailed 4 a person for four years i for using a knife to rob a person of only a few dollars in Cathedral | Square, said Mr Justice Holland. His record of r robbery was greater than 3 that of Hallett. The Judges were concerned about the prevalent use of knives to rob persons in the street and public places while they 4 were going about their business, and an exem- 3 plary sentence was re- 5 quired in such cases. The offence was relatively unpremeditated, and the knife was not S used to inflict injury. “No doubt that was because your victim submitted. Had he not done so one wonders what might have .3 happened.” "I must say that I am surprised that the probation officer suggests that offending of this kind, with your background, J! can be dealt with by a community-based sen- , tence. “That is unreal, and it is unfortunate that it may have built up your expec- 7, tation unreasonably,” said ■ his Honour. Hallett had not ‘|| responded to communitybased sentences, and had been jailed for a breach . of periodic detention. “I am staggered that the probation officer has 4 said that your co-offender received nine months im- J prisonment on a similar matter. It was not. He was convicted only of theft u and was acquitted of robbery,” said his Honour. 4