R v Hartstone
[2025] NZHC 2503
•29 August 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE
CRI-2025-012-716
[2025] NZHC 2503
THE KING v
SHAUN MICHAEL HARTSTONE
Hearing: 29 August 2025 Appearances:
C E R Power for Crown
S A Saunderson-Warner for Defendant
Judgment:
29 August 2025
SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J
The charges
[1] Mr Hartstone, you are here for sentence today having pleaded guilty to charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm,1 resisting police,2 and threatening to kill.3
The offending
[2] I will start by briefly outlining the facts of the offending. The victim was a 54-year-old man who was well known to you. You had a Honda trail bike stored at
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $2000 fine.
3 Crimes Act, s 306(1)(a); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
R v HARTSTONE [2025] NZHC 2503 [29 August 2025]
the garage of the victim’s home and on about 9 April 2025 it was stolen. You believed the victim and another person had stolen it and you tried to get it back without success.
[3] Around 3 am on 21 April you drove past the victim’s home where the victim and another person were in the garage. A number of fireworks were fired from your ute and you yelled abuse at the victim.
[4] Two days later, again around 3 am, the victim was again in his garage. You parked your ute nearby. You yelled abuse at the victim and during this incident, a window to the victim’s van was smashed. He subsequently found two broken arrows, including one inside the van.
[5] Later that same day, around 10.15 pm, you returned in your ute to the victim’s house with at least one other person. In your vehicle you had a full-sized, Siege 300 compound crossbow, capable of firing an arrow at 300 feet per second. You had previously used this crossbow when hunting.
[6] The victim heard your vehicle and came out of the garage. He was followed by another male. He picked up an axe and walked out carrying it. He heard you say “you f..ing deserve it, you f..ing c..”. You then loaded your cross bow with a bullet point arrow which you shot at the victim. The victim was struck in his torso with a 15 and a half inch long arrow which penetrated deep into the victim. You then left at speed and travelled to Oamaru.
[7] As a result of the shooting the victim was transported to Dunedin Public Hospital by ambulance. He had to undergo surgery the following day to remove the arrow. Fortunately, no internal organs were hit, and the arrow was only embedded in fatty tissue and the victim was discharged after surgery.
[8] When the police sought to arrest you at the address in Oamaru, you were angry and thrashed around rather than complying with the police. It took two police officers to complete the arrest and required them to take you to the ground and handcuff you. You had to be restrained multiple times during the arrest process because of your aggression.
[9] Furthermore, when handcuffed, you yelled at one of the police officers “I’m going to kill you. When I get out, I’m going to find your house and shoot you”.
[10] The police located the Siege 300 crossbow, arrows and fireworks when they conducted a search of your home. I also note that you told a number of people prior to the offence that you were going to do something to the victim. For example, around four to five days before the shooting, you referred to the victim and you said “I’m going to get him back, I’m going to shoot him”.
The sentencing process
[11] In sentencing you today, I am going to begin by setting a starting point for the most serious charge, the injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. I will then decide what uplift there should be to that sentence to reflect the other two charges.
[12] I will then consider what aggravating or mitigating factors there are which relate to you and adjust the sentence accordingly.
[13] In doing this, I must have regard to the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002 including, in this particular case, to deter and denounce your conduct, to hold you accountable for the harm done, to promote in you a sense of responsibility for that harm and to protect the community from you.
The starting points
[14] Counsel are agreed that the lead charge is the wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and the guideline sentencing decision is R v Taueki.4 In that decision the Court explained that the starting point for sentencing would be set by undertaking “an assessment of the number of features which add to or reduce the seriousness of the conduct and the criminality involved”.5 It listed a number of factors which it considered aggravating. However, the Court also stressed the need to evaluate the seriousness of a particular factor as this would be relevant to determining which sentencing band the offending fell into.
4 R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA).
5 At [28].
[15] Relevant to this case, the Court said that band two, which encompasses sentences of five to 10 years’ imprisonment, involved offending which featured two or three of the identified aggravating features. Band three, however, was reserved for serious offending which has three or more of the identified aggravating features and where the combination of them is particularly grave. That band encompasses starting points from nine to 14 years.
[16]The Crown has submitted to me that the aggravating features are:
(a)extreme violence, given the arrow was shot into the victim’s abdomen at very close range (two metres);
(b)premeditation, saying there was a high degree of premeditation involved in this offending. You took the crossbow and drove to the victim’s house to confront him. Furthermore, you had made comments to numerous associates in the preceding days that you were intending to do this;
(c)serious injury, with the Crown noting the victim required surgery to remove the arrow and the fact that more serious injury or death did not occur was a matter of luck;
(d)use of a weapon; and
(e)vigilante action. The Crown submits that the shooting appears to be in retribution for what you believed the victim had done. Furthermore, as Crown counsel put it, you had been “playing games” with the victim all week and you made it clear that you were going to teach him a lesson and you wanted to hurt him.
[17] Crown counsel say that there are up to five aggravating features that apply which may been seen, in combination, to make the offending particularly grave, and the Crown submits the offending may fall within band three of Taueki, attracting a
starting point of nine to 14 years’ imprisonment but, at the very least at the top of band two.
[18] Your lawyer, however, says that while there is extreme violence, some premeditation, the use of a weapon and a degree of vigilantism, it is not a case where the combination of aggravating factors is particularly grave so as to make it a band three case. In particular, she says the extent of violence and the use of weapons are intertwined in this case. The extremity of the violence is due to the use of a crossbow, and not because there was prolonged, unprovoked or gratuitous violence. She says it is important therefore not to double count extreme violence and use of a weapon.
[19] She also notes that this is not a case where serious injury resulted. While that may be a matter of luck rather than good management, it does not alter the fact that the extent of the injury was a surgical wound on the victim’s torso and he was discharged from hospital within 24 hours.
[20] Both counsel have referred me to a range of comparable cases,6 with your lawyer submitting that they indicate a starting point of eight years’ imprisonment, while, for the Crown, the submission is that a starting point of nine to 10 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
[21] In my view, the key aggravating factors are premeditation, the use of a weapon and vigilante action. I consider that identifying extreme violence as a separate aggravating factor here would double count the use of a weapon, which in this particular case, is a seriously aggravating factor given that, like a firearm, the crossbow is designed to cause fatal injuries.
[22] I also do not consider that serious injury is an aggravating factor in this case. To be convicted on a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, there must inevitably be an injury, that is an element of the charge. I accept Ms Saunderson-Warner’s submission that, to be an aggravating factor, would normally
6 R v Amohanga [2021] NZHC 1121; R v Kopua [2022] NZHC 2757; Nuku v R [2019] NZCA 319; and Cooper v R [2025] NZCA 272.
require the injury to cause long-term or permanent disability or to seriously impact on the victim’s quality of life. That is not the case here.
[23] There can be no doubt, however, that this was a highly premeditated crime, planned for a number of days, including by executing run-ins with the victim of a threatening nature in the lead up to the offending.
[24] Tied in with premeditation, is the fact that this was a form of vigilante action. You clearly decided to take the law into your own hands, and it is important that such behaviour is denounced and deterred.
[25] In my view, the combination of aggravating factors do not quite shift it into band three but, it is clearly near the top of band two and an appropriate starting point is eight years and six months.
[26] I now turn to what uplift there is to be for the additional offending on your arrest. Again, in my view, the principles of denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing purpose when behaving in such a way with law enforcement officers.
[27] The Crown points out that sentences of 12 months are commonplace for offending involving threats to kill which are made face to face or by telephone.7 The Crown submits that taking into account totality, an uplift of six months’ imprisonment would be appropriate.
[28] In terms of the charge of resisting police, the Crown submits either a concurrent sentence of one month or a conviction and discharge may be appropriate on this charge and Ms Saunderson-Warner concurs with those submissions.
[29] In my view, the aggravating features of the threat to kill8 are that it was made directly to the victim, the victim was a police officer carrying out his duties, and it was made in circumstances where you were being arrested for carrying out vigilante-style
7 McKinlay v Police HC Rotorua CRI-2011-470-28, 28 November 2011.
8 Having regard to the aggravating factors identified in Faaleaga v R [2011] NZCA 495 at [11].
violence against another person, and that made the threat more real. The only mitigating factor perhaps is that it appears to be something said in the heat of the arrest, rather than a calculated threat. On its own, it could easily attract a starting point of 12 months or more. However, having regard to totality, I accept counsels’ submissions that an uplift of six months is appropriate.
[30] I also consider that the charge of resisting arrest was serious in that it was prolonged and required two officers to restrain you. That said, it was part of your threatening and aggressive behaviour on being arrested, which is already captured by the uplift for the threat to kill. Having regard to the totality I will not uplift further for this charge.
Aggravating factors
[31] I now turn to personal aggravating factors. Here, the Crown points to your previous relevant criminal history. This comprises three recent convictions for assaulting police and two previous convictions for threatening behaviour. The Crown submits an uplift of 2.5 per cent may be appropriate to reflect this.
[32] Your lawyer, however, says that this equates to approximately two and a half to three months on the starting point depending on the starting point I adopt. She says you do not have a history of serious violent offending and the prior offences appear most relevant to the charges of threatening to kill and resisting police which are not the lead charges and make up a relatively small part of the starting point. An uplift of two and a half to three months for prior offending is therefore, in his submission, about 50 per cent of the sentence which would be imposed on those charges, which she says is not proportionate. She submits that either a one-month uplift or no uplift at all.
[33] I accept that you do not have a criminal history of serious violence of the type which was inflicted here, but nevertheless, the combination of recent violence on three occasions against the police, along with doing a threatening act and intimidation are crimes which have the same flavour as the intimidation and threats which form part of the background to the lead charge here. I do not consider, therefore, the previous history only relates to the minor charges. In these circumstances, I would uplift the starting point by two per cent to reflect this aggravating factor.
Mitigating factors
[34] Your guilty pleas were entered on 3 June 2025 when the offending occurred on 23 April 2025. I accept your counsel’s submission that these were very early guilty pleas and are properly reflected by a full guilty plea discount of 25 per cent.
[35] I then turn to other mitigating factors. In this regard, Ms Saunderson-Warner has had a report prepared by a clinical psychologist, Mr Craig Prince. This is not a case where your upbringing has contributed causatively to your offending. While Ms Saunderson-Warner speaks of you potentially experiencing different kinds of abuse, the only evidence I have is that you were subjected to ordinary corporal punishment by your parents before this became illegal. Importantly, Mr Prince records you saying you were not exposed to domestic violence, family upheaval or physical, sexual or psychological abuse, and you made similar observations to the pre-sentence report writer.
[36] However, it appears that, as a child, you were diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder because of your difficult behaviour. You were prescribed medication for your ADHD, although it had side effects and your mother took you off this. Eventually, you were placed in social welfare care where you continued to display behavioural difficulties. You also lived for a year with your grandparents where you enjoyed the outdoor lifestyle.
[37] You left school early and you had a chequered work history, not staying in jobs for longer than six months, preferring instead to socialise with friends. While it seems that you both drink and have tried drugs, you say you did not particularly enjoy these and there is no suggestion you were drinking or on drugs at the time of your offending. However, you have used illicit drugs, and in 2019 or 2020, when concerns were expressed about your mental state, you were admitted to a mental health hospital for two weeks before your presentation improved. It was considered you were suffering from Drug-Induced Psychosis caused by taking methamphetamine. About eight months later you were admitted again and, despite your denials, it was believed that substance abuse was the cause of your mental health disorder.
[38] There have been further admissions or interactions with mental health services in late 2023 and early 2024. Last year you were prescribed with a drug to treat psychosis and agitation and that apparently was working. The family friend with whom you were living on release conditions said that for 12 months you were trustworthy, honest and were doing amazingly well. However, you chose to take yourself off this medication and your behaviour again became irrational and impulsive. You stopped taking the medication not long before the current offending.
[39] Mr Prince says there is a clear link between your mental health concerns and your offending, noting the deterioration in your behaviour after you stopped taking the medication. He also says there is a link between your ADHD and your pathway to criminal behaviour.
[40] Your counsel, Ms Saunderson-Warner submits a 15 per cent credit should be allowed to recognise these factors.
[41] The Crown, however, says that the report makes it unclear what the link is between your background and your offending behaviour and at most, you should only get a five per cent discount for those factors.
[42] I accept that your ADHD has been causative of you leaving school early and failing to hold down a job and ultimately leading to your history of low-level criminal offending. However, unlike other people, you had a clear pathway out of this, through taking appropriate medication. The very fact that you were able, for a year, to live well and make your family proud of you while on medication, speaks volumes. It was your deliberate choice to go off that medication. Indeed, in your letter to the Court, you acknowledge that you had been medicated to help control your anger, and while the medication did really help, you had not been taking it.
[43] In my view, there simply cannot be the same level of credit for this background factor when you knew how to control it. The family friend you were living with urged you to keep taking your medication, and your decision to go off it was ultimately the cause of you being asked by her to leave that accommodation. I would allow a five per cent deduction for your background issues, including your ADHD diagnosis which
predisposes you to volatile behaviour. That reflects the fact that you had the tools to prevent it, but you chose to abandon them.
[44] No other credits are sought, nor could they, given that both the pre-sentence report writer and Mr Prince record that you displayed a lack of remorse and continued to express threats and anger towards the victim.
[45] With an uplift of two per cent and total deductions of 30 per cent, there is a net credit of 28 per cent. When I take that off the starting point of nine years, the end sentence rounding down is six years five months.
Sentence
[46]Mr Hartstone, would you please stand.
[47] On the sentence of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm you are sentenced to six years, five months’ imprisonment.
[48] On the charge of resisting the police, you are sentenced to serve one month’s imprisonment concurrently with the sentence on the lead charge.
[49] On the sentence of threatening to kill, you are sentenced to serve six months’ imprisonment concurrently with the sentence on the lead charge.
[50] I also make an order for the destruction of the weapon used in this offending as sought by the Crown. I am not making an order to deal with your fines. I am simply not sure of my jurisdiction to do that and that can be addressed at a later date if need be.
[51]You may stand down.
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Dunedin
Copy to:
S A Saunderson-Warner, Barrister, Dunedin
0
3
0