A guest post by David Garrett:
Court of Appeal rejects appeal and confirms “second strike” sentence.
When the “three strikes” law was making its way through parliament a great deal of misinformation was spread about by those opposing it. Among the more outrageous claims was that the law would result in the prison population tripling within two years, and that there would be a sharp rise in attacks on police by “strike” offenders desperate to avoid arrest. Two years on, seven offenders have received their second “strike”. Far from tripling, the prison population is falling, and there is no evidence of an increase in attacks on police.
Another claim – that the Judges would oppose the law, and find ways to avoid imposing it – has now also proven to be nonsense. The Court of Appeal has just released its decision on an appeal by Brock Robert Norton, who appealed against his conviction and sentence for a “second “strike”. The appeal was rejected, and Norton’s three year sentence for aggravated robbery was confirmed.
Norton – just like the other six second strikers – is just the kind of thug the “three strikes” law was intended to target. While still on parole from his “first strike” sentence, Norton and an accomplice invaded the victim’s home and cornered him in his bedroom, robbing him of a cellphone. The victim was injured in the fracas. Norton first “strike” offence was very similar to his second – robbery and demanding with menaces.
These two are clearly not his only convictions. In rejecting his appeal, a three Judge bench of the Court of Appeal noted that with his record, and the seriousness of the offending, a further prison term was inevitable despite his lawyer’s plea for a sentence of supervision. So much for “three strikes” targeting poor lads who had stolen chocolate bars from dairies – another piece of misinformation promulgated at the time by the likes of Kim Workman.
For lawyers – and their violent criminal clients – this decision is very significant. It puts the lie to the claim that “the Judges all hate it”; we now know that at least one District Court Judge is happy to impose a three year sentence on second strike, knowing the offender will serve the whole sentence, and at least three Court of Appeal Judges are quite comfortable with such a sentence.
The real test will of course come at third strike stage – perhaps Mr Norton will be the first to test whether the Court of Appeal is happy with a 14 year sentence for aggravated robbery. That is what awaits Norton if he fails to take the rehabilitative opportunities offered to him in jail – which the Judges strongly recommended he do – and instead re-offends violently on release in three years time.
It will be interesting to hear the bleating of Kim Workman and his ilk when the inevitable happens, and someone goes away for a record holiday courtesy of Her Majesty and “three strikes”. If the first third striker isn’t Mr Norton, it will be a thug just like him.
I regard it as a good thing that Norton will have to serve his three year sentence without parole – especially as he did his second strike on parole. Hopefully the fact that if he offends again, he will get 14 years without parole will act as an disincentive. If it doesn’t, then he’ll not be doing a fourth strike for at least 14 years!
Always happy to run guest posts, including from Mr Workman.Tags: David Garrett, three strikes