‘Three strikes’ has gone but a 14-year sentence for aggravated robbery goes on

The “three strikes” law is history but it lives on for the people who are still serving sentences imposed under it.

Conrad John Eduardo Sheers, 25, is one of them.

Sheers is serving a 14-year jail term for aggravated robbery of two women working in a bakery on Ponsonby Rd, Auckland, in March 2019. He pleaded guilty.

He pointed a large knife at one of the women and said, “I won’t hurt you, just give me all the money in the register.”

READ MORE:
* Gun reform to pass into law, and ‘three strikes’ law repealed
* Three strikes repeal: Lawyers’ associations push for changes to apply to those already sentenced
* Sawn-off shotgun used in thefts of shoes, watches, caps and phone
* Three-strikes rule strikes back for Dunedin offender

He was given $785 and left.

It was a “third strike” for Sheers so he was sentenced to the maximum jail term of 14 years for aggravated robbery. The judge found it would have been clearly unjust for the sentence to be served without the possibility of parole and Sheers could be considered for parole after serving one-third of the term, which was four years and eight months’ jail.

The three strikes law was repealed in mid-August but that did not change sentences already imposed.

Sheers appealed against his sentence. His lawyer, Susan Gray, told the Court of Appeal on Wednesday that he was “not having a good time in prison”.

He was previously diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and more recently it was confirmed he also had fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, she said.

Without the three strikes law he probably would have been sentenced to up to three years’ jail.

An extra 11 years for someone like him was shocking, cruel and disproportionately severe, Gray said.

Public safety was important but prison – which had no treatment programmes for fetal alcohol disorders – was not the solution for people with disabilities, she said.

For the Crown, lawyer Peter Marshall said it was taking a principled approach on whether to oppose appeals by offenders still serving three strikes sentences.

He accepted Sheers’ case was “close to the line”.

For a sentence to breach the Bill of Rights ban on sentences that were disproportionately severe it had to be well beyond excessive, Marshall said.

When Sheers received a second strike warning the judge had taken care to make it clear that Sheers was in a grave position, Marshall said. The third strike offence was committed within three months of his release from jail.

Sheers acknowledged targeting shops with female workers and it was important not to gloss over the effect on the victims.

But Gray said because of the fetal alcohol spectrum disorders Sheers didn’t think through his offences and acted impulsively.

A neuropsychologist thought Sheers knew about the three-strikes regime but did not fully understand the risk he faced.

The three judges at the Court of Appeal reserved their decision.