Harsher sentence for man who had ‘every advantage’

Should someone from a supportive, loving family background be treated more harshly when they throw it all away and end up standing in the dock for sentencing?

That is the question Judge Raoul Neave had to ponder during a sentencing session in the Christchurch District Court.

He was struck by how the criminal justice system deals with people from contrasting backgrounds: a gang offender from a violent, deprived background, and others who have offended seriously but unexpectedly after lapsing into drug offending.

He jailed the gang offender for four years for armed robbery, but imposed home detention sentences on three young offenders for a kidnapping over a drug debt.

The longest sentence of the three – a year of home detention – was imposed on the man from the most supportive background. ‘‘It is only proper that the person who started from the best position should end up with the highest sentence,’’ Judge Neave explained.

He signalled the conundrum early in the sentencings: ‘‘Here is someone who has had every advantage and thrown it away. One wonders if it should be an aggravating factor.’’

Judge Neave began by sentencing Tama Tapine, 29, for an armed robbery in which he and another offender went into an Aranui house, with Tapine carrying a sawn-off shotgun. They forced their way into a man’s bedroom, where they demanded money and methamphetamine. The man had neither, so they took his cellphone and laptop, but returned them to him before driving off in his car.

Defence counsel Elizabeth Bulger said the cultural report on Tapine showed a ‘‘fractured and chaotic upbringing’’. There were still worrying gang connections and entrenched views attributed to him, but she said his attitude had become softer and less aggressive.

Judge Neave said Tapine had ended up in state care because of his deprived childhood. He grew up with gangs, drugs, and violence, but now wanted to be a good father to the children he was in contact with, and wanted to distance himself from the criminal behaviour that led to his imprisonment.

From a starting point of 81 months’ jail, Judge Neave took account of factors including the cultural report on Tapine, and reduced his sentence to 48 months.

Marshel Amies, Ashkay Luthra and Jonty Scott, all aged 20 and under, had admitted charges of kidnapping, threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm, armed robbery, and unlawfully taking a car.

Scott also admitted charges of possessing cannabis for supply, making a false statement, and several charges of driving while forbidden. Judge Neave said Scott had made a false statement about being a robbery victim to cover for a breach of his bail curfew.

The judge said the charges arose from a person being taken at knifepoint over a drug debt after the three had become involved in cannabis dealing on Facebook Messenger.

Judge Neave said two of them came from solid family backgrounds, with the advantages that were ‘‘significantly lacking’’ in most offenders.

‘‘I get the sense that they were stuck in some kind of stupid video game and out of contact with reality,’’ he said.

The judge imposed nine months of home detention on Amies, 10 months on Scott, and 12 months on Luthra. He ordered all of them to pay a share of the victim’s $1066 losses, and emotional harm reparations of $500 each. Scott also had to forfeit $175 that had been seized as cash from his drug dealing.

‘‘It is only proper that the person who started from the best position should end up with the highest sentence.’’ Judge Raoul Neave