R v Ross Ca14/00

[2000] NZCA 431

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND  CA14/00

THE QUEEN

V

CAMERON ANTHONY ROSS

Coram:	Thomas J Blanchard J Tipping J
Judgment: (Ex parte)	23 March 2000

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY TIPPING J

[1]      This appeal is against three concurrent sentences of nine years imprisonment, imposed on two charges of aggravated robbery and one of aggravated assault with intent to rob.  The sentences were passed in the District Court on 18 November 1999, following the appellant’s pleas of guilty to these charges as well as to two more minor offences.

[2]      The appellant applied for legal aid to conduct this appeal.   The Registrar declined this request in accordance with section 15 of the Legal Services Act 1991 following the necessary consultation process.   The appeal has therefore been determined on the basis of written submissions filed by the appellant.

[3]      The facts can be stated quite briefly.   On 3 September, 9 September and

12 September 1999 the appellant attempted robberies at three different take-away bars.  He was successful in two of them.  The appellant was dressed in a balaclava and armed with an air pistol in each case.  In the first offence, the appellant entered the take-away bar as the proprietor, his wife and son were locking up.  He took $431 in cash and a Rolex watch worth $1000.  In the second offence, the appellant entered the take-away bar through an unlocked rear door.  On confronting the proprietor, the appellant was given approximately $1000 in cash from the till.

[4]      In the third offence (aggravated assault with intent to rob) the appellant entered the take-away bar just before closing time but after cashing up.   The proprietor and an employee were present.  The appellant demanded money from the till.  Upon finding that only coins remained, he attempted to wrestle the proprietor to the ground.   A struggle ensued.   The appellant was injured and escaped empty- handed.  He spent the night in hospital.

[5]      On 13 September the police searched the appellant's home under warrant and found proceeds from the first robbery.   The appellant then went "on the run" and entered an Auckland house when the owners were away and stole various items.

[6]      The appellant has appealed against the sentences of nine years on the grounds that they are manifestly excessive and fail to take account of his personal circumstances.   His relevant personal circumstances form a sorry backdrop to his current offending.  He comes from a broken home, and seems to have encountered trouble early in life.  He received help from the then Children and Young Persons Service.  It also appears that the appellant was sexually abused during his childhood and that he received counselling for this abuse.

[7]      More directly related to this spate of offending is the fact that the appellant has a history of substance abuse.  The pre-sentence report indicates that he initially abused   alcohol,   then   cannabis   and   finally,   at   the   time   of   these   offences, amphetamine.   The appellant acknowledges these addictions in his submissions to this Court.  He claims that he committed the robberies to finance his relatively recent amphetamine addiction.   He states that when craving amphetamine he descended

into “black moods” where he became “evil and cunning and cared nothing but for myself and how I was going to get my next fix”.  The appellant has a list of previous convictions, including two in 1994 for aggravated robbery for which, in combination with other offences committed at the time, he received a total sentence of six and a half years imprisonment.   He was on parole at the time he committed his current offences.

[8]      As against this, the appellant demonstrated an ability to make a positive contribution to society on his release from prison in 1998.   He found full time employment as a roofing tiler and met a woman to whom he became engaged.  In his submissions, he expressed appreciation of and remorse for the trauma he put his victims through.  And of course the appellant pleaded guilty to all charges.

[9]      We have considered these submissions fully.   Having done so, we are not persuaded that the sentences are manifestly excessive nor that the sentencing judge failed to have proper regard to the appellant’s personal circumstances.  We note that the maximum sentence for each of the three offences is 14 years imprisonment and that an offender’s personal circumstances are but one factor to take into account. The appeal is dismissed.