Lawrence v Police - [2015] NZHC 1122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-409-000027 [2015] NZHC 1122

BETWEEN
STEVEN SHANE LAWRENCE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 19 May 2015

Appearances:

L L Heah for Appellant
K South for Respondent

Judgment:

25 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] On 26 March 2015, the appellant, Steven Lawrence, was sentenced to

11 months’ imprisonment for four charges of threatening to kill three politicians.1

His lawyer argues that the starting point for this offending is not imprisonment. Instead, as the pre-sentence report had recommended, community work and supervision to monitor his behaviour, emotional and mental health as well as to support him in maintaining sobriety would have been more appropriate.

[2] Alternatively, if imprisonment is warranted, then the starting point the Judge adopted of 16 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive, particularly when regard is had to other cases where threats have been made against persons in public office.

Background to the offending

[3] Mr Lawrence’s circumstances are eloquently described by the author of his

pre-sentence report. He is described as:

1 New Zealand Police v Lawrence [2015] NZDC 5045 at [32].

LAWRENCE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 1122 [25 May 2015]

… a lonely man, with only a cat for company in his one bedroom city council flat … he has no friends, and his only social contact is with his brother. An alcoholic, he resumed drinking after a year’s reported abstinence on Christmas Eve 2014 …

Mr Lawrence is strongly attracted to political discourse and supports left wing politics. He bears a particular animosity to the National party. It appears that his social isolation has caused him to become fixated on the perceived inadequacies of National Party politicians. He is also against any policy which might involve New Zealand in overseas conflicts. These beliefs and attitudes prompted the offending but the catalyst was his intoxication during the offending period.

[4] In his intoxicated state, Mr Lawrence wrote four emails to three different members of the National Party government via email addresses given on the parliamentary website. This facility enables people to send an email to any Member of Parliament by completing an online email form which includes a return email address and a subject line.

[5] On the evening of 11 January 2015, he sent an email to his first victim where he threatened to personally see the victim was pumped “full of bullets” and ending with the line “oh joyous day when you [sic] entrails are spread across the streets I rejoice in your demise”.

[6] Five days later he sent an email to the second victim using the subject line “JeSuis [sic] Une Terroriste”, which translates as “I am a terrorist”, and presumably was intended to echo the slogan adopted by supporters of freedom of speech after the
7 January 2015 massacre at the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, in Paris. In that email the recipient was told:

I will not tolerate this clowns [sic] government that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lawrence v Police

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v Police [2015] NZHC 1122
Case: [2015] NZHC 1122
Decision Date: 25 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steven Lawrence appealed his conviction and sentence for threatening to kill three members of the New Zealand National Party government by email. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. The central legal issue was whether the District Court's sentence of 11 months’ imprisonment was excessive and whether an alternative sentence such as community work would have been more appropriate. The Court considered the nature and seriousness of the threats, the offender's mental health, and the ability to effect the threats.

The High Court found that while the threats were offensive and frightening, they lacked immediacy and specificity, reducing the offender's culpability. The Court emphasised the importance of deterrence but also recognised that imprisonment for a first-time offender would act as a sufficient deterrent. The Court compared the case to other cases of threats against public office holders and found that the starting point of 16 months was too high. The Court concluded that an eight-month sentence, reduced by 25% for the early guilty pleas and a further month for the time spent on a 24-hour curfew, would adequately mark the gravity of the offending and deter future behaviour of this kind. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to eight months’ imprisonment.

The final orders were that the sentence of 11 months’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with a sentence of eight months’ imprisonment, with the prohibition on applying for home detention remaining in place.

Orders