R v Hartstone - [2025] NZHC 2503

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…

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 Hartstone

Details

AGLC: R v Hartstone [2025] NZHC 2503
Case: [2025] NZHC 2503
Decision Date: 29 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hartstone was heard in the High Court of New Zealand in Dunedin, with the defendant Shaun Michael Hartstone appearing for sentencing. Hartstone pleaded guilty to charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, resisting police, and threatening to kill. The court heard that Hartstone had a long-standing dispute with the victim, culminating in the defendant firing an arrow from a crossbow into the victim's torso. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court identified the key aggravating factors to be the premeditation of the crime, the use of a weapon designed to cause fatal injuries, and the fact that the crime was a form of vigilante action. The court decided that the combination of these factors placed the offending near the top of band two, attracting a starting point of eight years and six months' imprisonment. Additionally, the court considered the defendant's resistance to arrest and threats made to a police officer during arrest as further aggravating factors, resulting in an uplift of six months' imprisonment for these charges. The court also noted the defendant's prior convictions for assaulting police and threatening behaviour, warranting a two per cent uplift to the starting point.

The court recognised the defendant's early guilty pleas, which resulted in a 25 per cent discount to the starting point. The court also considered the defendant's mental health issues, including a diagnosis of ADHD, Conduct Disorder, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder, as well as periods of substance-induced psychosis. However, the court found that the defendant had the means to control his behaviour through medication but chose not to, leading to a reduced mitigation of five per cent. The court found no evidence of remorse and noted continued threats and anger towards the victim.

After considering all factors, the court sentenced Hartstone to six years and five months' imprisonment for the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, one month's imprisonment concurrently for resisting police, and six months' imprisonment concurrently for threatening to kill. The court also ordered the destruction of the weapon used in the offending. The court did not address the defendant's fines, reserving the issue for a later date if necessary.

Orders