Teen service station robber gets reduced sentence

Anaru Rueben was one of three who stormed the Thames Gull service station in January this year and fled with cigarettes and the till. Image / Google maps.

A teen involved in a service station armed robbery has received a flurry of discounts that has reduced his sentence by 65 per cent.

From facing a starting point of four years and 10 months, Anaru Rueben was sentenced to four months’ home detention which will be served in a residential facility in Hamilton East.

The 18-year-old, and two others, caused a loss of more than $14,000 in the aggravated robbery of the Thames Gull service station on January 9 this year, after taking off with the cash till and cigarettes.

However, he and others were eventually caught by police in Operation Smelter where search warrants were executed in both Hamilton and Thames in relation to a string of aggravated robberies in the Waikato District.

Eight young people aged 14-20 were arrested and some stolen goods were recovered.

Rueben appeared in the Hamilton District Court today when he was sentenced on a charge of aggravated robbery - which has a maximum prison term of 14 years’ jail - and unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle.

Judge Denise Clark took a start point of four years and 10 months’ prison, but Rueben’s counsel Sacha Nepe successfully convinced her not to send the teen to prison.

Judge Clark got to an end jail term of eight months’ prison.

Because it was a term of prison under two years it was eligible to be converted to home detention and for that to be served at Te Whare Puutikitiki; a residential facility in Hamilton East, that offers a manaakitanga service to tāne coming out of prison or serving community sentences.

The Government has recently announced changes to the Sentencing Act, which still needs to be passed through the house, which could see judges restricted from imposing no more than 40% worth of discounts at sentencing.

If Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s proposals are passed, they could come into effect from early next year.

Frustrated victims

On January 9 Rueben and the others he was with waited in the stolen car before going into the petrol station.

Rueben had a rubbish bin, another had a hammer and the third was filming as Rueben and his associate went behind the counter and took cigarettes and the cash till.

They left in the stolen car before stopping to transfer the stolen property into that car.

Nobody was injured but Gull suffered a loss totalling $14,363.55, while the owner of the stolen car had to pay $1000 to get that fixed too.

Crown solicitor Kasey Dillon said the victim impact statement detailed how they’d been left frustrated as they’d worked hard for their money and suffered a significant financial loss as a result.

He pushed for a five-year jail starting point and accepted while home detention could be an option, community detention would be “wholly inadequate”.

‘Programme will provide structure’

Nepe said her client was one of three but he wasn’t carrying a weapon - just the bin to fill with items - but she accepted his co-accused had a hammer.

“My submission is that while it is a joint enterprise, that Anaru is somewhat lesser than that of the person with the hammer.

“It was obviously distressing but there’s no evidence that [hammer] was used.”

Nepe outlined the teen’s disruptive upbringing and having to move around different homes due to his parents’ inability to look after him.

He had been in an adult prison in custody since the offending “that is a significant period of time for a young person to be in an adult prison”.

She had been working with the Department of Corrections to find an alternative programme for Rueben to do and had found Te Whare Puutikitiki; a residential facility in Hamilton East, that offered a manaakitanga service to tāne coming out of prison or serving community sentences.

She suggested the judge couple community detention with an intensive supervision sentence.

“He is a young man and the court must consider the least restrictive outcome.

“This programme will provide him with structure,” and one that the teen was “excited” about taking part in.

She accepted the victims had been left out of pocket but said Rueben had been in custody and wasn’t in a position to offer anything.

One of the facility leaders told Judge Clark that the programme “will be intense”.

“He won’t have time to muck around,” and that after settling in there’s an expectation that he takes part in all that’s on offer which includes karakia, alcohol and drug counselling, and carving.

She successfully argued for a multitude of discounts, including 25 per cent for his early guilty plea, and a further 20 per cent for youth, and 20 per cent for his section 27 report which detailed his upbringing. Given he had been in custody since being arrested in January, extra time was also taken off for that.

Judge Clark declined to issue reparation as it was “not something I can practically impose”.

7 comments

Reparation.

Posted on 23-07-2024 13:33 | By morepork

Failure to require reparation, while practical at the moment, should have been reserved as an option. This young man got a "softer" sentence largely because there was reason to believe he could be rehabilitated. An essential part of that rehabilitation would be, in my opinion, to take responsibility for what he did and make reparation for it, even if it happens a few years down the road. He should be required to pay his share of both the $1000 and the $14,000, and that should be considered an important part of his rehab.
We complain that Courts are soft on young offenders, but the real problem is that they just don't seem to consider victims.


Unbelievable

Posted on 23-07-2024 13:53 | By Yadick

20% discount for youth, HE'S 18!!!
He also got a lollypop, a little bag of chippies and a lemonade popsicle.
Why is aggravated robbery and other serious crime on the rise?


Right and Wrong

Posted on 23-07-2024 15:14 | By Equality


Regardless of how a person is brought up - and regardless of their age - we ALL know the difference between right and wrong. To give credit against a criminal offence for these reasons is ridiculous! The courts need to standardize a system for the way criminals are punished and the judges need to be made aware of these conditions! The new Government promised to get tough on crime and are doing so in a lot of cases. It is the judges who need to be sentenced for not keeping the public safe! Wrong is wrong 100% and there should be no reduction for half wrongs or a quarter wrongs age etc.




Over It

Posted on 24-07-2024 08:16 | By Thats Nice

I thought these soft sentences were a thing of the past. This judge needs a damn good talking to. Your upbringing or anything thing else is your past is irrelevant now. I'm sick to death of this sort of softness - sort it out National!


CHOICE

Posted on 24-07-2024 09:14 | By Alfa male

There are many thousands of young people who have not robbed a service station, many of those will be from poor or difficult or troubled backgrounds yet they do not commit crimes. This young man chose to commit this crime, it wasn’t because of his youth, or his troubled past, it was simply his choice. Just as many crimes, or maybe more, are committed by well off people from privileged backgrounds, it’s not a persons background that determines their behaviour, it is their choice. It’s time to stop allowing them to excuse their behaviour by claiming disadvantage.


@Equality

Posted on 24-07-2024 11:40 | By morepork

I liked your post. Over centuries, crime and punishment has worked on the principle of punishing wrongdoers. This is supposed to deter other potential offenders and it gives solace to the victims (if they believe: "an eye for an eye"; not eeryone does...), but its success has been pretty dismal. Even executing people didn't wipe out crime. Deterrence is rendered irrelevant because perpetrators don't believe they will be caught. The modern approach is to take a wholistic view and consider the background of offenders, but this leaves victims feeling unsatisfied and the rest of us feeling unsafe. There will always be lazy, greedy, stupid, anti-social people who will take a short cut at the expense of the rest of us. We need to stop "glorifying" criminality and make it socially unacceptable. Start with the young and change minds/attitudes. Rehabilitation and prevention (where possible) give better long-term outcomes than "punishment".


@ Alpha male

Posted on 25-07-2024 15:35 | By Yadick

Excellent comment and right on the button. Well stated.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.