Martin v The the Queen

[2022] NZHC 145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2021-454-34

[2022] NZHC 145

BETWEEN

ROMEO STORMY MARTIN

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:

26 January 2022 (via VMR)

Appearances:

M B Ryan for Appellant

T Simpson for Respondent

Judgment:

27 January 2022

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

Introduction

[1]                 Mr Romeo Martin pleaded guilty to two charges of recklessly discharging a firearm1 and one charge of unlawfully presenting a firearm at another individual.2 He was sentenced to 23 months’ imprisonment on 30 November 2021.3

[2]                 Mr Martin now appeals against that sentence on the basis that it should have been substituted for one of home detention. He submits nine months’ home detention is appropriate given the time spent on EM bail prior to his guilty plea and taking into account the short-term sentence imposed and the five months he has already spent in custody.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 198(2); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

2      Arms Act 1983, s 52(1); maximum penalty six months’ imprisonment or $10,000 fine.

3      R v Martin [2021] NZDC 23530.

MARTIN v R [2022] NZHC 145 [27 January 2022]

The offending

[3]                 The offending occurred as the result of a confrontation. The appellant was driving past a bar and became involved in a verbal confrontation with a group outside the bar. He got out of the vehicle and was subsequently assaulted by the group. The appellant threatened to return with a gun and shoot the individuals involved. He left the area, and drove to his address to pick up a .22 rifle before returning. Upon his return, the appellant fired two shots at two complainants, who were in a vehicle at a car park some 50m away. The vehicle was not struck and the complainants were unharmed.

[4]                 The two complainants left the area and picked up a third person in their vehicle. They travelled to Mr Martin’s address in convoy with another car carrying three further men. It was accepted by the District Court Judge that they were behaving in a menacing way.4

[5]                 Mr Martin came outside with the firearm and fired a shot towards one of the vehicles 90 to 95m away. This hit the sill below the driver’s door. He then pointed the gun at another vehicle without firing a shot. The vehicles subsequently left the premises.

District Court decision

[6]                 After outlining the relevant facts the Judge summarised the key elements of the offending as the obtaining, loading and firing of a dangerous weapon at a vehicle, and the pre-meditated nature of the first incident. These were factors aggravating to the offending.5 Overall, the Judge considered a starting point of four and a half years’ imprisonment was appropriate, having regard to relevant case law.6

4 At [4].

5      At [34]–[35].

6      At [38], citing Fane v R [2019] NZHC 408; Gathergood v R [2010] NZCA 350; and R v Templeton

CA 460-05, 6 July 2008.

[7]                 Turning to…