R v Sanft - [2017] NZHC 2164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-092-006257 [2017] NZHC 2164

THE QUEEN

v

GUSTAV OTTO SANFT

Hearing: 7 September 2017

Appearances:

K Hogan for Crown
P Hamlin and A Bloem for Defendant

Sentenced:

7 September 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau
Copy to: P Hamlin/A Bloem, Auckland

R v SANFT [2017] NZHC 2164 [7 September 2017]

[1] Gustaf Otto Sanft you are for sentence on the charges of manslaughter and unlawful possession of a pistol, a sawn-off shotgun. You pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful possession of a pistol and were found guilty by a jury on the charge of manslaughter. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment.

[2] On the morning of Thursday, 2 June 2016 you pointed the shotgun towards your daughter Amokura and discharged it. She suffered horrendous injuries to her face and head and died instantly.

[3] There is a divergence of view between the Crown and you as to the essential background facts. Your case at trial was and remains for sentencing that you did not know the gun was loaded or that it was capable of discharging a shot. You say the shotgun discharged accidentally, that it just exploded while you were examining it. You deny acting out of any anger towards Amokura.

[4] The Crown accepts that you did not know the shotgun was loaded and that you did not intend to harm Amokura. But the Crown submits that on the morning of
2 June Amokura was playing up and jumping on the couch and says you pointed the shotgun towards her and pulled the trigger.

[5] Mr Sanft, having heard the evidence at trial I have a clear view of what happened on 2 June 2016. I am satisfied that you were much more familiar with the shotgun than you were prepared to accept. I reject your evidence that you had intended to get rid of the gun for some time. Your explanation of how you came into possession of it in the first instance is not credible. To suggest it was put under you while you were sleeping on a couch in the garage some months before is simply inherently unlikely. To then suggest that while you hated firearms, as you said, you did nothing to get rid of it for several months (including not returning it to the person who left it with you when you had the opportunity) beggars belief.

[6] I find that during the time you had the shotgun in your possession you and others from time to time, had it out, looked at it and tried to operate it. The cartridges were found at various places around your property. You told the police

you had tried to fire it. You may well have experienced difficulty in firing it but you knew how to load and unload it and you knew how it operated. On the morning of…

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 Sanft

Details

AGLC: R v Sanft [2017] NZHC 2164
Case: [2017] NZHC 2164
Decision Date: 7 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Gustav Otto Sanft was sentenced for charges of manslaughter and unlawful possession of a firearm. Sanft pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawful possession of a pistol and was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for the gravity of the crime, which resulted in the death of his daughter, and the mitigating factors presented by the defence.

The court considered the evidence presented during the trial and found that Sanft had deliberately pointed the firearm at his daughter and pulled the trigger. The court rejected Sanft's claim that the shotgun discharged accidentally while he was examining it. The court also found that Sanft was not angry towards his daughter at the time of the incident but could not explain why he pointed the gun towards her. The court took into account the serious breach of duty of care Sanft exhibited in handling the firearm and the devastating impact of his actions on his family and the community.

The court sentenced Sanft to imprisonment for four years and four months on the charge of manslaughter and three months on the charge of unlawful possession of a pistol, to be served concurrently. The effective sentence was four years and four months. The court also ordered the destruction of the firearm. The court took into consideration the limited remorse shown by Sanft, his participation in the restorative justice conference, and the support from his family, which led to a reduction in the starting point of the sentence.

Orders