Man drove others on suburban house raid

Press, 19 December 1986, Page 7

Man drove others on suburban house raid

A car owner who drove three men and a woman to a house in Spreydon, in which a couple were attacked and household goods worth $3OOO taken, at 3 a.m. on February 3, was jailed yesterday for 2!/ 2 years.

The sentence, imposed by Mr Justice Hardie Boys in the High Court on Anaru Matthews, aged 24, will extend by about eight months a sentence of two years imprisonment imposed on Matthews in October on another robbery charge. The offence for which Matthews was sentenced yesterday was a joint charge of robbing a couple of household goods worth $3OOO, while armed with offensive weapons. He had pleaded guilty to the charge in the District Court, and was committed to the High Court for sentence.

He had been jointly charged with the robbery with Richard Hey Hey Moses, Terry Paul Taituha, Scoobie Albert Te Poono, and Christine Ropiha.

They had been sentenced. Ropiha was put on probation, and the others were given prison terms.

The police summary of the offence was that Matthews had driven his car, with the four others, to the complainants’ house at 3 a.m. They answered Ropiha’s knock at the door, but the three men then entered, one carrying a piece of pipe, another an axe, and another a softball bat. Threats were made to the couple and they were

forced to lie in the hall. A wallet and other property, including a stereo unit and video, was taken. Police inquiries disclosed a background to the incident, two nights earlier, in which the complainants had been to a party during which the woman complainant’s handbag was stolen. The handbag and contents were found in Matthews car, in which a woman who had been taken to the party by Matthews was seated.

On recovering the handbag from the car, the male complainant lost his temper and kicked and damaged Matthews’ car. Inquiries showed that the visit to the complainants’ house was made to extract payment for the damage to the car.

Submissions by defence counsel, Mr E. T. Higgins, were heard before scheduled sentencing on Tuesday. However, his Honour then adjourned sentencing to yesterday so that evidence could be called on whether the trip was made at Matthews’ request to extract money for damage to the car, and whether Matthews supplied the weapons taken into the house. The woman complainant was raped in her house, leading to a charge against Te Poono of sexual violation.

Mr Higgins had said Matthews always had denied he initiated the visit. He claimed the others initiated the visit. He also had denied quite consistently that he

provided the weapons.

He said Matthews accepted that he knew some form of crime was going to be committed by the others, but did not know the nature of this.

Initially, he did not want to become involved.

Mr Higgins sought a concurrent prison sentence to be imposed for the offence. His Honour had then adjourned sentencing to yesterday for further evidence to be called, before Matthews was sentenced. He said he was worried about the conflict between the Crown and defence on whether the trip to the house was made for Matthews benefit, whether he provided the weapons, or whether he was the driver who was hijacked for the occasion.

This would make a difference in the sentence to be imposed. The Crown, represented by Mr T. M. Allan called two witnesses: one a prison inmate and the other the male complainant. Mr Higgins then called Matthews, who said he could not recollect putting any weapons in his car.

He said the others had arranged the trip after Ropiha had said she felt guilty that his car had been damaged when it was her girl friend who had taken the handbag and he, Matthews, had nothing to do with it. She had sought to get money from the complainants for damage caused to the car.

His Honour, imposing sentence, said he had heard a rather confused

tale of how the matter came about.

However, the fact of the matter was that six people arrived at the complainants’ house at 3 a.m., three left the car with weapons, entered the house and attacked the occupants and stole property from them.

There had been doubt throughout the case whether Matthews knew a robbery was intended.

However, his Honour said, he did not accept that Matthews did not know anything more was involved than obtaining money from the couple at 3 a.m. on a Monday morning when the household was in darkness and the couple and their children were asleep. His Honour said he was prepared to accept that Matthews had the unwelcome company of the others, and that things got out of hand and went far beyond what he envisaged. He did not accept that Mattnews was as innocent of knowledge of their intentions as he had made out.

His Honour said the other men accused in the case had claimed the trip was not their idea, and they put the blame on Matthews.

Now, Matthews put the blame on them. He said Matthews h,ad a “pretty impressive record of lawlessness.”

He had appeared to have been improving until the offence for which he was imprisoned in October.

He was capable of much better things.