Sentence for ‘unprovoked shooting’ appealed
Continued name suppression also sought for 19yo who shot man in leg
The Rotorua teenager who shot a man in the leg because he thought the man was fighting with his partner has appealed his jail sentence and is fighting to keep his name secret.
His lawyer has argued for a noncustodial sentence and while the judge is yet to make a decision, he says the teen is unlikely to meet the threshold.
The now 19-year-old was last week jailed for two years and five months after pleading guilty to charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and unlawful possession of a firearm.
He cannot be named after his lawyer, James Olsen, applied for name suppression.
Sentencing Judge Eddie Paul refused the application but Olsen appealed.
The appeal was heard in the Rotorua High Court yesterday before Justice Graham Lang.
The offending relates to an incident early on September 27, 2020, when the teen, then 17, was a passenger in a car. He had a firearm he had found at a tangi that day in his possession.
The teen saw a couple on the roadside and thought the man was leaning over the woman, beating her up.
But the innocent member of the public and his girlfriend were simply stumbling home after a night out drinking in Rotorua.
The teen told the driver to pull over and approached the man, asking him if he was beating the woman. When the man replied “no, bro”, the teen pushed the man.
The man pushed the teen back and the teen retaliated by pulling out a loaded firearm and shooting the man in the leg.
The victim came close to dying, spent three weeks in hospital, months unable to walk, had to undergo three surgeries and had ongoing respiratory issues caused by a blood clot in his lung. He also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.
At the offender’s sentencing on July 1, the sentencing judge described the offending as “extreme violence” that had left a member of the public crippled with life-long breathing difficulties and mental trauma.
During yesterday’s hearing, Olsen argued his client’s sentence was “manifestly excessive” and the judge had not allowed enough discounts for his client’s borderline to low comprehension issues outlined in a medical report and his challenging personal background.
The Section 27 cultural report which outlined his client’s “quite traumatic and violent upbringing” had causal links to the offending, and warranted a further discount, he said.
Olsen also argued his client’s three previous “relatively minor” driving matters relating to the same incident should be put to one side in terms of the sentence imposed.
He said Justice Lang had the discretion to disregard some traffic matters when linked to a person’s youth.
Olsen said while his client was intoxicated at the time of the offending, the teen had undertaken an alcohol rehabilitation course and had made good rehabilitative efforts to help turn his life around.
He argued the offender should be eligible for a “non-custodial sentence” once personal mitigating factors and the time his client spent on restrictive bail were considered.
“This offending can be seen as quite discrete. This is not a case of my client roaming the street in gang colours wanting to inflict violence on other people.”
Permanent name suppression was warranted in this case given his client’s youth and the “extreme hardship” he would face if his name was published in our “social media age”, a stigma he was likely to have to carry for the rest of his life, he said.
Crown prosecutor Anna Mcconachy opposed name suppression continuing, saying there was no evidence to support it.
Mcconanchy said Judge Paul’s sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the majority of matters raised had been well traversed at the sentencing hearing.
She said this was an “unprovoked shooting” and even if the offender had initially thought the victim was involved in domestic violence incident, shooting an unarmed man was “excessive” violence.
Justice Lang said this was “very serious offending resulting in very serious injuries to the victim” and noted the offender’s sentence had started at eight years before significant discounts for mitigating factors and personal factors.
“That is a massive reduction already, and in terms of the extreme hardship submission, I don’t think your client is going to meet the threshold, he told Olsen.
Justice Lang reserved his decision and continued the suppression order, saying he hoped to release his judgment on the matter next week.