R v Meyer
[2025] NZHC 2342
•19 August 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2023-004-9845
[2025] NZHC 2342
THE KING v
ELIJAH MEYER and PATRICK LEONARDO LANGI
Hearing: 19 August 2025 Appearances:
B N Kirkpatrick for the Crown J C Harder for Mr Meyer
J J Rhodes and K E Tuialii for Mr Langi
Sentencing:
19 August 2025
SENTENCE OF GAULT J
Solicitors:
Mr M W Nathan and Mr B N Kirkpatrick, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Mr A J Holland and Mr J C Harder, Barristers, Auckland
Mr J J Rhodes and Ms K E Tuialii, Barristers, Auckland
R v MEYER and LANGI [2025] NZHC 2342 [19 August 2025]
[1] Mr Meyer and Mr Langi, you appear for sentencing today having each pleaded guilty to two charges of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard,1 two charges of arson2 and one charge of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle.3
The offending
[2]I begin by setting out the facts of your offending.
[3] On the evening of 25 August 2023, you were involved in a series of events in Epsom and Hillsborough in Auckland that targeted relatives of Mr Slaimankhel, a patched Comanchero Motorcycle Club member who was incarcerated at the time and had tried to leave the gang. He was ordered to pay his way out of the gang but did not do so. Together, you planned and participated in retribution to send him a message.
[4] Mr Meyer, you were a nominee Comanchero member. Mr Langi, you were a patched member.
[5] On 10 August 2023, a Department of Corrections search in the cell of another Comanchero member found cell phone Google Maps searches of roads in Epsom and Hillsborough and notebook entries of Mr Slaimankhel’s family addresses there.
[6] On 15 August 2023, Mr Meyer, you were directed to conduct surveillance of Mr Slaimankhel’s family addresses in Epsom. You conducted surveillance and took photographs of these addresses. Mr Langi, your phone had screenshots of Maps searches of these Epsom addresses.
[7] On 18 August 2023, Mr Meyer, you were directed to, and did, conduct further surveillance of those family addresses in Epsom and Hillsborough. You conducted surveillance of the addresses and vehicles linked to the family over an extended period of time, taking eleven photographs and making detailed notes monitoring the movements of people around the addresses, including recording registration details of vehicles parked at the addresses or on the street. Seven of these vehicles were
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 198(2). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act, ss 267(1)(b) and 66(2). Maximum penalty: 14 years’ imprisonment.
3 Crimes Act, s 226(2). Maximum penalty: two years’ imprisonment.
registered directly to a member of the Slaimankhel family or a business they owned. You communicated your notes to unknown parties.
[8] On 25 August 2023, at around 7:00 pm, you both arrived at the Epsom addresses in a grey four-door vehicle. Mr Meyer, you and an unknown associate exited the vehicle with long barrelled firearms. You fired at least three rounds at one address. Your associate attempted to fire shots at the other address, but was unable to make his firearm work.
[9] One of the shots went through the window frame of the master bedroom at the front of the house. It caused the interior of the window frame to chip off. At the time of shooting at the house, there were eight occupants inside, including three young children in the room you shot at.
[10] About 7:13 pm, a silver Subaru Impreza bearing stolen plates was set on fire in Hillsborough. The description of this vehicle matched the one that was used in the shooting. Permission was not given for the vehicle to be taken or set on fire.
[11] At 7:31 pm, you both arrived outside the Hillsborough address in a Nissan Tiida motor vehicle. Mr Meyer, you exited the vehicle with a long-barrelled firearm and aggressively knocked on the front door. At that time, the occupants of the address were having dinner upstairs. One of them came down the stairs and opened the front door. He saw you standing there wearing a black balaclava and holding a firearm.
[12] You immediately fired two close range shots in the direction of the front door. The shots lodged in the door as he attempted to close it. You placed your foot in the door to attempt to keep it open. However, he managed to shut it. He locked it and attempted to run up the stairs. You walked to the front entrance window and fired three further shots through the window and up the stairs, where he was attempting to run away. One of these shots grazed him in the back.
[13] You then got back into the Nissan and you both left the address. At about 7:43 pm, you both arrived at the Nash Road Reserve. Together you set the Nissan on
fire and left the area. Permission was not given for that vehicle to be taken or set on fire either.
[14] The shootings and related arson of the getaway vehicles were part of a coordinated attack targeting members of Mr Slaimankhel’s wider family. You both were a key part of this attack.
[15]At 8:07 pm that evening police located both of you inside a stolen Toyota Mark
X. Police followed you in the vehicle until you stopped. You were both arrested in relation to the stolen vehicle.
[16] A scene analysis of the vehicle indicated positive indications of gunshot residue on the steering wheel and front passenger seat. Analysis of clothing revealed two component particles on Mr Meyer’s jersey and one component particle on Mr Langi’s t-shirt. During their investigation police located three fired .233 Remington calibre bullet cartridges on the road outside the Epsom address and three fired .22 Long Rifle calibre bullet cartridges and one live .22 Long Rifle calibre bullet at the Hillsborough address.
Victim impact statements
[17] I have read the victim impact statements provided by some victims and acknowledge the stress and trauma caused to the address occupants and the inconvenience to the vehicle owners.
Approach to sentencing
[18] In terms of my approach to sentencing,4 I will first set a starting point which reflects the nature and circumstances of your offending, adjusted up or down to incorporate aggravating and mitigating features of the offending. This adjusted starting point is then further adjusted to take into account aggravating and mitigating factors personal to each of you, as well as your guilty pleas.
4 As set out by the Court of Appeal in Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296, [2020] 3 NZLR 583 at [46].
[19] I must have regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Act 2002.5 The primary purposes of sentencing in this case are to deter you and others from similar offending, to denounce your conduct, to hold you accountable for the harm caused to the victims, to protect the community and to assist in your rehabilitation and reintegration.
[20] I must also take into account the need for consistency between sentences for similar offending, and the need to impose the least restrictive sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances.
Starting points
[21] I turn to the starting points for your offending. Mr Kirkpatrick, for the Crown, and your counsel Mr Langi, Mr Rhodes, agree that I should set a global starting point for the lead charges of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard, and then uplift this for the arsons and unlawfully getting into motor vehicles. Mr Meyer, your counsel, Mr Harder, agrees that the firearm charges are the lead charges but submits that I should first set a starting point for the more serious shooting in Hillsborough and add an uplift for the Epsom shooting.
[22]There is no guideline case for discharging a firearm with reckless disregard.
[23] Mr Meyer, for the firearms charges, the Crown seeks a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment for you, pointing to three comparable cases which I footnote.6
5 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7 and 8.
6 R v Baker [2024] NZHC 3152. Mr Baker alongside associates went to a rival gang member’s home in a stolen vehicle used for that purpose. The group possessed at least three firearms and fired at least eight shots at the house. Later the same night, Mr Baker alongside associates travelled to a further address, firing at least three shots at the bedroom window of the house, where they saw a rival gang member’s partner standing. She was at the address with her young children. Downs J considered that although Mr Baker was not the leader, he was present and encouraged what occurred, irrespective of whether he had a firearm. Downs J adopted a starting point of four years, six months’ imprisonment for the second shooting, with an uplift of 18 months for the first shooting, totalling six years’ imprisonment.
R v Paul [2025] NZHC 1192, where the defendants were involved in the same shooting as in R v Baker. Lang J derived assistance from the approach taken by Downs J and adopted a starting point of five years’ imprisonment for the second shooting, with an uplift of 20 months for the first shooting. Mr Paul was considered to have a higher degree of culpability due to his higher rank in the gang. A combined starting point for the firearm offending of six years and eight months’ imprisonment was adopted.
[24] Mr Harder seeks a four year starting point for the Hillsborough shooting, with an uplift of one year and three months for the Epsom shooting, which would mean a starting point of five years and three months’ imprisonment on the firearm charges. He submits the cases referred to by the Crown with starting points of six years or above involved inter-gang rivalry and are more serious than your case. He refers to a case where the Court said the aggravating feature of gang warfare was reserved for inter- gang violence with the potential that has for escalating and extreme violence.7
[25] I accept this case does not involve inter-gang violence, but retribution towards the family of a person seeking to leave the gang is also very serious, and the case Mr Harder refers to did not feature the kind of dangerous shootings involved in this case and the other cases – including further cases cited by Mr Rhodes.8
[26] Although the approach makes no difference to the outcome, I prefer to consider the firearms offending globally in this case given the immediacy and connectedness of the two shootings. Mr Meyer, you fired shots at both addresses, including shots at a victim running away up the stairs at the second address. It is agreed that the aggravating factors of your offending are the premeditation and planning, which I consider was present to a high degree; there were multiple offenders; the use of two
R v Crawford [2022] NZHC 1588, where the defendant was involved in a series of drive-by shootings that were prepared and planned as gang retaliation. Mr Crawford took the lead role in planning the shootings, which occurred at four addresses over four days, involving armed Killer Beez gang members. Powell J adopted a starting point of six years’ imprisonment for three of the intentional damage charges arising from the shootings. An uplift of two years’ imprisonment was imposed for a charge of intentional damage and aggravated robbery, among a few other uplifts.
7 R v Sampson-Arps [2022] NZHC 2720 at [23].
8 Puloka v R [2024] NZHC 2196, where a gang background led to an attack on the residential property. Mr Puloka was charged with recklessly discharging a firearm and intentional damage after he and two others shot at the victim’s address, with two shotguns. A month later they returned to the address, which was empty as the victim’s family had moved out, and fired 12 shots into the property. This had been a targeted response to brewing tension between the victim’s son and Mr Puloka’s co-offenders, against a gang background. On the charge of recklessly discharging a firearm, the starting point for the principal offender was four years and six months’ imprisonment, and for Mr Puloka the starting point was three years and nine months. Both were then uplifted by 12 months for the second shooting.
McAllister v R [2023] NZHC 3705, where the defendant faced one charge of recklessly discharging a firearm, two charges of possessing an offensive weapon and one charge of unlawful interference with a motor vehicle. The firearm charges related to the offender travelling to the victim’s address after being paid a counterfeit note for drugs. Mr McAllister rang the doorbell, stood on the victim’s fence and pointed a sawn-off shotgun at him as he emerged. Mr McAllister fired at the house as the victim went back inside, breaking the kitchen windows. Children were present at the address at the time. A starting point of four years’ imprisonment was upheld on appeal, taking into account the degree of premeditation, the nature of the weapon used, and the harm done.
long-barrelled firearms; and the harm to the victims – particularly fear. The Crown also points to the fact that the offending was connected to your allegiance to the gang. I acknowledge, however, your lower role in the gang hierarchy.
[27] Having considered the aggravating features and the comparable cases, Mr Meyer I consider the appropriate global starting point for your firearms offending is six years and three months’ imprisonment.
[28] Mr Langi, the Crown seeks a starting point of six years’ imprisonment for you on the firearms charges, acknowledging it cannot be confirmed that you personally fired shots at the properties. Nevertheless, you played a significant role in the offending with the aggravating features identified, and you held a more senior position in the gang – with power and influence over Mr Meyer. Mr Rhodes submits that a global starting point of around five years’ imprisonment is appropriate.
[29] Having considered the aggravating features referred to, your role and the comparable cases, Mr Langi I consider the appropriate starting point for your firearms offending is five years and nine months’ imprisonment.
[30] For each of you, the Crown seeks an uplift of two years and six months for the remaining arson and vehicle charges. Mr Harder and Mr Rhodes both submit that an uplift of 15 months is appropriate having regard to totality. There is no guideline case for arson, but I have been referred to a case involving a two year starting point for destroying a vehicle,9 and one involving an uplift of 12 months.10
[31] Given this case involves destroying two stolen vehicles after using them as getaway cars, plus being located in a third stolen vehicle, and adjusting for totality, I consider an uplift for the other offending of 21 months is appropriate for each of you.
[32] Therefore, Mr Meyer, your starting point for the combined offending is eight years’ imprisonment.
9 Smith v R [2023] NZHC 952.
10 R v Wharerau [2024] NZHC 1200.
[33] Mr Langi, your starting point for the combined offending is seven and a half years’ imprisonment.
Personal factors
[34] Turning to personal factors, I first address the aggravating factor of your previous convictions.
Previous convictions
[35] Mr Meyer, you have a conviction for unlawfully possessing a pistol from September 2023, for which you received a non-custodial sentence, and additional Youth Court notations for the possession of weapons. The Crown acknowledges that an uplift is not warranted, and I agree given the circumstances and your youth at the time.
[36] Mr Langi, you have no convictions for firearm offences, but you have a conviction from Australia for an aggravated assault where you were sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment. The Crown submits that a small uplift could be warranted, but I do not impose a further uplift given the different offending and that you were aged 18 at the time.
Guilty pleas
[37] Turning to your guilty pleas. You both first appeared on 14 December 2023. Following resolution discussions, Mr Meyer, you pleaded guilty on 21 May 2025 and Mr Langi you pleaded guilty on 28 May 2025.
[38] The Crown notes that your guilty pleas came at a late stage, less than one month before trial, which was scheduled to start on 9 June 2025, and therefore submits that a reduction of 10 per cent is available.
[39] Mr Harder submits that a reduction of 20 per cent is appropriate and Mr Rhodes submits that a 15 per cent reduction is appropriate as the cost and effort of a trial was avoided. I accept that a more serious charge was withdrawn and the pleas meant that Crown witnesses avoided the need to give evidence. Balancing this against the
lateness of the resolution discussions and your guilty pleas, a 15 per cent reduction is appropriate for each of you.
Mr Meyer’s personal background
[40] Mr Meyer, I turn to your personal background. I have read the Corrections’ provision of advice to courts report. You were born in Queensland, of Samoan descent, and raised in Sydney, the fifth child in a family of nine. You describe your upbringing as good but rough. You are close with your family, describing your mother as your best friend. Your father was a stern disciplinarian but the became a pastor. He died when you were 11 years old. You had to grow up quickly. Your mother relocated you to New Zealand to avoid antisocial connections but you left school early following expulsions. You became involved with the Comancheros following your older brothers who were part of the gang. You relocated back to Australia for a period.
[41] You showed some remorse for the family of your previous gang associate but sought to justify your actions given the lifestyle he was part of.
[42] I accept Mr Harder’s submission that your family background has funnelled you towards the gang culture modelled by your brothers, which has in turn led to your escalating offending, albeit your upbringing does not involve the level of deprivation, trauma, substance abuse and mental health issues we unfortunately see so often. I consider a reduction of 10 per cent for your personal background is appropriate.
Youth
[43] Mr Meyer, you are also entitled to a reduction for youth. You are now 23 years old but you were 21 at the time of the offending. While your offending was not impulsive, it reflects your poor decision making driven by a desire to feel a sense of belonging in the gang. Your decision-making reflects a lack of maturity consistent with the scientific evidence. However, your reduction must be moderated by your
gang allegiance and lack of rehabilitative purpose. Having regard to the comparable cases,11 I allow a further 10 per cent reduction for youth.
Children
[44] The written submissions filed by Mr Holland on your behalf also submitted that your partner of two years is now three months pregnant, and you help care for her two young children. Although Mr Harder did not address this, the written submission said this provided an opportunity for the Court to encourage rehabilitation and promote your positive reintegration with these newfound parental responsibilities. However, there is insufficient information about the children’s connection with, and dependence on, you to warrant a discrete further reduction.
EM bail
[45] A discount for your time spent on EM bail is also sought. You have been on electronically monitored bail since 3 November 2023. You breached three times although the breaches are described as minor. You have complied with your sentence of intensive supervision since 17 March 2024. Mr Harder submits that a reduction of 10 months is appropriate to reflect your 21 months on EM bail.12 I accept that.
Mr Meyer’s end sentence
[46] Mr Meyer, you are entitled to reductions totalling 44 months, reducing your end sentence down from the starting point of eight years’ imprisonment to four years and four months’ imprisonment.
[47]Please stand.
[48] On the two charges of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard, I sentence you, Mr Meyer, to four years and four months’ imprisonment.
11 See for example Hutchinson v R [2020] NZCA 655, where the Court of Appeal increased a 15 per cent discount for youth, upbringing and rehabilitation to 20 per cent because Mr Hutchinson was effectively a “loyal foot-soldier obeying instructions” who “sought a sense of belonging by joining a gang” and despite the offending being premeditated, he had been “acting under the instruction of a fellow gang member four years his senior”.
12 Citing Parata v R [2017] NZCA 48; R v R [2017] NZCA 210; White v R [2017] NZCA 322 at [60].
[49]On the two charges of arson, I sentence you to two years’ imprisonment.
[50] On the charge of unlawfully getting in a motor vehicle, I sentence you to six months’ imprisonment.
[51]All sentences are to be served concurrently.
[52]Please stand down.
Mr Langi’s personal background
[53] Mr Langi, I turn to your personal background. I have read the Corrections’ provision of advice to courts report and your alcohol and drug assessment report. You are aged 26 and were 24 at the time of the offending. You were born in Auckland, of Tongan descent and one of ten children. You moved to Australia when you were five. Your father was a heavy drinker. You were regularly exposed to family violence. Your parents were violent towards each other, and you and your siblings. Your family did not have much money and you lived in a poor part of Sydney for much of your upbringing, where gangs were prevalent. You started drinking at the age of 13 and had joined a neighbourhood street gang by the time you were at secondary school. Your brothers were already committing crime, and you followed suit. You were expelled from secondary school at 14 years old. By that time, you had been in and out of juvenile detention.
[54] By the ages of 14 to 17 years old you were using cocaine, MDMA, cannabis and alcohol. When you were 18 you were imprisoned for two years. During this time, you say you started consuming heroin and methamphetamine nearly daily. Following that imprisonment you were deported from Australia to New Zealand. You were introduced to the Comancheros. Through the Comancheros you started partying, drinking heavily and using cocaine.
[55] At the time of the offending, you say you were drinking heavily and using several grams of cocaine a day. You say you felt a need to prove loyalty to the Comancheros by undertaking the offending, a need that was exacerbated by your addiction.
[56] You report being traumatised by your home environment. Your symptoms are said to match a provisional diagnosis for PTSD, ADHD and depressive/anxiety disorder. You have used substances to cope with these symptoms.
[57] The alcohol and drug report concludes that you meet the diagnostic criteria for severe alcohol and cocaine use disorders, and moderate cannabis use disorder. The report writers say this has played a central role in your offending.
[58] On the positive side, while in custody, you have completed a number of programmes and workbooks in an effort towards rehabilitation. Mr Rhodes submits this is clear evidence of a move towards rehabilitation. I have read the several letters of support from your partner and her family and friends and your own letter of remorse for your actions.
[59] Mr Rhodes submits that a combined discount of 25 per cent would be justified for your addiction, background, rehabilitative efforts and remorse.
[60] Causative contribution between background factors and the offending must be shown.13 I accept that your family background, the deprivation and substance use in Australia has led you towards your gang culture and offending. I accept that addiction may have contributed but the link between addiction and this offending is not strong.14
[61] I acknowledge your rehabilitative efforts and remorse while you have been in custody, but any reduction must also be moderated by your gang allegiance.
[62] Taking these factors together, I consider a combined reduction of 20 per cent is appropriate (that is, 15 per cent for your background and 5 per cent for your rehabilitative efforts).
13 Berkland and Harding v R [2022] NZSC 143, [2022] 1 NZLR 509.
14 This case is rather different from the causative connection between addiction and drug offending in Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 ZLR 648.
EM bail
[63] Turning to EM bail, Mr Rhodes submits that a reduction of three months should be applied for the six months you spent on EM bail. You were originally granted EM bail on 1 March 2024. You were subsequently arrested for a breach of bail on 3 September 2024 and have remained in custody since. Despite that, I agree that a three month reduction is appropriate.15
Mr Langi’s end sentence
[64] Mr Langi, you are entitled to reductions totalling 35 months, reducing your end sentence down from the starting point of seven and a half years’ imprisonment to four years and seven months’ imprisonment.
[65]Please stand.
[66] Mr Langi, on the two charges of discharging a firearm with reckless disregard, I sentence you to four years and seven months’ imprisonment.
[67]On the two charges of arson, I sentence you to two years’ imprisonment.
[68] On the charge of unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle, I sentence you to six months’ imprisonment.
[69]All sentences are to be served concurrently.
[70]Please stand down.
Gault J
15 See n 12 above.
6