R v Gow - [2017] NZHC 1760

NOTE: PUBLICATION AND SUPPRESSION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPANY/NAME MENTIONED IN PARA [112](ii)(b) PROHIBITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-025-1112 [2017] NZHC 1760

THE QUEEN

v

TONY LEONARD GOW

Appearances:
R W Donnelly for the Crown

J U Mooney for the Defendant

Sentencing:

28 July 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

A. SENTENCE TODAY

[1] Mr Gow, you may remain seated until the end of these Remarks.

[2] You appear for sentence after pleading guilty to charges under the Arms Act 1983, including: two counts of unlawful possession of explosives;1 two counts of unlawful possession of pistol weapons (being sawn-off shotguns),2 and one count each of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition.3 There is an unrelated charge of cultivation of cannabis under s 9(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[3] You have been on remand for a long time, as you were arrested on

13 June 2016, and have been in custody ever since. You pleaded guilty

1      Arms Act 1983, s45(1).
2      Section 50(1)(a).
3      Section 45(1).

R v GOW [2017] NZHC 1760 [28 July 2017]

on 7 March 2017. Applications for bail in the District Court and this Court have been refused, for reasons which I will explain.

B. THE TRACK OF THESE SENTENCING REMARKS

[4] I will traverse the facts and your explanation, then refer to psychiatric and psychological assessments, reports from the Probation Officer, the submissions of counsel, and other information, and particularly that information provided by you, Mrs Gow.

[5] There have been very helpful submissions by the Crown through Mr Donnelly, and by Mr Mooney for you. I want to acknowledge their help, and that of Ms Teepa of the Department of Corrections, to the Court throughout the long process since you first appeared.

[6] You pose a particular and unusual concern to the Court. Your rehabilitation and the protection of the public are paramount and linked considerations. This is complex given your very disturbing thoughts of extreme violence, which went further when you made and collected weapons. The reason you have such disturbing thoughts of violence and pose a real risk to others requires a very careful sentencing response. That said, you have no convictions for non compliance or violence at all and your offending was some 25-30 years ago when you were an adolescent and young man.

[7] For you, your family, and the community there must be structures which will help you, to reduce the risk you pose to the community, which means you must have a peaceful and unstressed life with your wife, children and grandchildren, as it is clear that your violent thoughts are generated by stress, and link directly to the extreme hurt you suffered as a young person. For these charges, no sentence of imprisonment I could impose within the range available to me, would keep you in prison today for reasons I will explain. Imprisonment would not allow the sort of assistance you require to protect…

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 R v Gow

Details

AGLC: R v Gow [2017] NZHC 1760
Case: [2017] NZHC 1760
Decision Date: 28 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Tony Leonard Gow was sentenced on charges related to the unlawful possession of explosives and firearms, as well as cultivating cannabis. The case involved significant legal issues concerning the appropriate sentence for Mr Gow, considering his mental health history, the nature of his offences, and the need for rehabilitation and public protection. The court had to balance the severity of the crimes with Mr Gow's personal circumstances, which included a history of mental health issues stemming from childhood trauma. The sentencing remarks highlighted the need for a sentence that would not only address the public safety concerns but also facilitate Mr Gow's rehabilitation. The court concluded that a sentence of intensive supervision, combined with specific conditions aimed at his treatment and monitoring, was the most appropriate outcome. This decision was based on the potential for such a sentence to reduce the risk of reoffending through structured rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

The final orders included a sentence of intensive supervision for two years on all charges except for the cannabis cultivation, for which Mr Gow was discharged without conviction. Special conditions were imposed, including mandatory psychological assessment and treatment, restrictions on approaching certain locations and previous workplaces, and requirements to notify the Probation Officer of employment changes. Mr Gow was also directed to take prescription medication as advised by medical professionals, subject to his consent, and to submit to judicial monitoring. The court emphasised the importance of Mr Gow's cooperation with the treatment and monitoring requirements for the success of the sentence.

Orders