R v Petersen - [2023] NZHC 3281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2022-085-938

[2023] NZHC 3281

THE KING

v

MEL PETERSEN

Hearing: 20 November 2023

Counsel:

W Tupua for Crown

P J Ross for Defendant

Sentence:

20 November 2023

SENTENCE OF ELLIS J

[1] Mr Petersen, I am sentencing you today on one charge of unlawful possession of a firearm and one representative charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 I’ll come back to the things that you did that resulted in those charges in a moment.

[2] Earlier this year I gave you an indication of the sentence that would be imposed. I said the starting point would be nine years’ imprisonment but you would get a 25 per cent discount off that if you pleaded guilty, which you then did. I also said that you could get a further discount of around 10 per cent because you were only 21 at the time of the offending and because you had already shown signs of rehabilitation
– by which I mean the steps you were taking to turn your life around.

1 The maximum sentence for the firearm charge is four years imprisonment. The maximum sentence for the wounding charge is 14 years imprisonment.

R v PETERSEN [2023] NZHC 3281 [20 November 2023]

[3] Since the time of the sentence indication your lawyer has arranged for Harry Tam to write a report to help the Court with sentencing and I also now have the psychologist’s report, an alcohol and drugs report and the usual provision of advice to court’s report. I note and I will come back to it you have been attending the Grace Foundation and have been doing well there.

[4] Before I talk more about those things, though, I need to talk about what happened on 23 April 2022. Although I talked about those things in my sentence indication it is important to repeat some of what I said again today.

[5] So on that day, 23 April 2022 you and some other people—including Mana Lawson—were in the Wellington CBD in the early morning. You had been drinking in a number of bars for some hours before. Some of the people you were with were associates or patched members of the Mongrel Mob and the Killer Beez.

[6] The three victims had also been drinking in town that night, in the company of others, some of whom were associates or patched members of a rival gang. They were celebrating the 21st birthday of one of the victims, Mr Dekiah Poe.

[7]At some point your group became aware that the other group was around.

[8] At about 5am your group drove in a convoy and parked on Inglewood Place, Te Aro. You walked from there to Dixon Street. You had a 12-gauge shotgun hidden in your left trouser leg.

[9] Your group approached the victims’ group, who were standing on the footpath outside Calendar Girls. When one person…

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 Petersen

Details

AGLC: R v Petersen [2023] NZHC 3281
Case: [2023] NZHC 3281
Decision Date: 20 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, the case of The King v Petersen involved Mel Petersen, who was sentenced for unlawful possession of a firearm and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court heard the case on 20 November 2023, with W Tupua representing the Crown and P J Ross representing the defendant. The sentencing was presided over by Justice Ellis.

The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors. This included the nature and severity of the crimes, the defendant's age at the time of the offence, his prior criminal history, his demonstrated rehabilitation efforts, and the substantial harm caused to the victims. The court also needed to consider the defendant's background, including his troubled childhood and history of substance abuse, as well as the length of time he had already spent on restrictive electronic monitoring bail.

The court, after considering all the mitigating and aggravating factors, concluded that the starting point for the sentence would be nine years' imprisonment. However, this was reduced by 25% due to the defendant's guilty plea and by an additional 10% due to his age and rehabilitation prospects. The court further reduced the sentence by 5% for the defendant's continued rehabilitation efforts and by 20% for the causative matters highlighted in the various reports. The court also deducted six months for the time spent on restrictive electronic monitoring bail. Consequently, the court sentenced the defendant to three years and six months imprisonment for the wounding charge, to be served concurrently with a one-year sentence for the firearm charge.

Orders