R v Peters - [2024] NZHC 3743

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2024-016-1392

[2024] NZHC 3743

THE KING

v

KARL ERIC PETERS

Appearances: D V Walker for Crown R Adams for Defendant

Sentenced:

9 December 2024

SENTENCING OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] Mr Peters, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to four charges:

(a)one charge of manslaughter;1

(b)one charge of unlawful possession of a firearm;2

(c)one charge of possession of a firearm without a licence;3 and

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 156, 160(2)(b), 171 and 177—maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
2      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1)—maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment or a $15,000 fine.
3      Section 20(1) and (3)—maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment or a $15,000 fine.

R v PETERS [2024] NZHC 3743 [9 December 2024]

(d)one charge of possession of a Class C controlled drug, namely cannabis4 for the purpose of supply.

[2] The victim of the manslaughter charge was James Stuart Atkins, father to three children.

The offending

[3]I will now summarise the facts of the offending.

[4] On the evening of 24 August 2024, Mr Atkins and three of his friends decided to go hunting on Tauwhareparae Road in an area that is rural and in which wild pigs and deer were known to forage near the road. The group had pig dogs and carried with them thermal imaging equipment for spotting wild animals.

[5] At around 10.30pm that evening, you and your son set out to go possum hunting along Tauwhareparae Road. You were using thermal imaging equipment to spot possums. That equipment detects heat sources and creates a visible image.

[6] You were armed with a .22 calibre rifle fitted with a thermal scope, as well as a hand-held thermal monocular.

[7] During the night, Mr Atkin’s party came across you and your son and were aware you were hunting from your vehicle on the road.

[8] According to what you said to police, you drove your ute along the road while your son sat in the front passenger seat armed with the .22 calibre rifle. As you drove slowly along the road your son used the thermal scope to pick up heat sources and identify possums. Once your son identified a possum, you checked and confirmed the target using the hand-held monocular. Once you confirmed the target you would advise your son to take the shot. Once the target was shot your son would go and retrieve it.

4 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f)—maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.

[9] After shooting several possums, your son picked up another heat source at the side of the road that was located behind a damaged culvert embedded in silt and debris. Despite the fact that you were aware people were hunting in the area, on this occasion you did not check with the thermal monocular or the scope before giving the okay for your son to take the shot.

[10] Your son then fired the…

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 Peters

Details

AGLC: R v Peters [2024] NZHC 3743
Case: [2024] NZHC 3743
Decision Date: 9 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Peters before the High Court of New Zealand in Gisborne involved Karl Eric Peters, who pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter, unlawful possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm without a licence, and possession of a controlled drug for supply. The manslaughter charge stemmed from an incident where Peters, while hunting with his son, accidentally shot and killed James Stuart Atkins, mistaking him for a possum. The court considered the aggravating factors such as Peters' failure to identify his target properly, the presence of a firearm licence lapse, and the impact on the victim's family. The Crown argued for a starting point of four years' imprisonment, while the defence suggested a starting point of four years based on similar cases. Ultimately, the court determined a starting point of four years was appropriate. Considering the mitigating factors, including an early guilty plea and remorse, the court applied discounts, resulting in a final sentence of three years' imprisonment. The court also ordered the forfeiture of the firearms and ammunition seized during the police search of Peters' residence. The judge emphasised the tragic nature of the incident and hoped that the sentence would aid Peters in his path towards rehabilitation and reintegration.

Orders