Appeals denied: Man found with AR-15 in motorhome can finally be named

A man convicted for illegally possessing a semi-automatic AR-15 was denied name suppression by both the High Court and Court of Appeal but was twice granted a five-week period of suppression to “come to terms” with the publication of his name.

Cornelis Christiaan Timmerman, whose name suppression lapsed on Thursday, was sentenced to nine months’ supervision in February after pleading guilty to eight possession-related firearms charges and one of trespass.

Those charges came after the Rotorua man was discovered to be in possession of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, four magazines and two rounds of ammunition.

According to the summary of facts, Timmerman had parked his motorhome outside the Rotorua police station on March 10, 2020. He entered the station to talk with a specific officer who was not there.

The offender responded by “acting in a disorderly manner” and was eventually arrested and trespassed from the station.

The following day, officers executed a search warrant at his motorhome which was still parked outside.

The officers discovered an AR15 semi-automatic assault rifle and magazines. There was no evidence Timmerman used the weapon, and he told police he was storing it for a friend.

Timmerman originally faced a catalogue of charges but was discharged on most of those last November, leaving eight charges to which he pleaded guilty.

At sentencing on February 18, Timmerman applied for permanent name suppression on the basis of “extreme hardship”, one of the tests that must be met for an order to be granted.

The basis for the application was Timmerman’s prior history of mental health struggles.

A psychological report provided by the offender’s lawyer said his client was on “the cusp of suffering from a psychotic illness”, and Timmerman had stated he had an “unshakeable” belief he would be in physical danger if his name was published.

But Justice Lang did not grant suppression, believing that with Timmerman facing a non-custodial sentence, he “was not realistically at risk of committing suicide in the near future”.

However, the judge did order an interim five-week period of suppression for the defendant “to come to terms” with the decision. That decision was appealed.

In the Court of Appeal, Timmerman’s lawyer, Glen Prentice, submitted that the High Court’s Justice Lang did not adequately consider the potential risk of self-harm.

He also referred to the judge’s five-week suppression order, arguing that very act was an acknowledgment of hardship in itself. He questioned the basis for the judge’s conclusion that five weeks would be sufficient.

However, Court of Appeal Justice Thomas found that Justice Lang’s decision was sound and agreed with the declining of the application.

Another five-week grace period was ordered, with suppression lapsing as of Thursday.

“Indeed, we share the judge’s opinion that the threshold of extreme hardship has not been made out,” Justice Thomas said in his appeal decision.

Justice Thomas noted that the offending was “unlikely to attract a high level of media interest”.