R v Schuster - [2015] NZHC 2833

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-090-5632

[2015] NZHC 2833

THE QUEEN

v

CORRIE RON SCHUSTER

Hearing: 22 October 2015

Appearances:

E Woolley for the Crown

A Maxwell-Scott and L Mulder for the Defendant

Judgment:

13 November 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF THOMAS J

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland. Counsel:
A Maxwell-Scott, Auckland. L Mulder, Auckland.

R v SCHUSTER [2015] NZHC 2833 [13 November 2015]

Background

[1]Mr Schuster, you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to:

(a)one charge of aggravated burglary, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment;1

(b)one charge of careless discharge of a firearm, which carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment;2 and

(c)one charge of unlawful possession of ammunition, carrying a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment.3

Facts

[2]The offending involved two incidents that occurred on 12 October 2014.

Offending at Glenfield address

[3] The aggravated burglary charge relates to the events which occurred at a Glenfield address on the North Shore. At around midday, you went to your brother’s flat. He was not home at the time but one of his flatmates, who knew you, and her partner were present.

[4] You had a loaded, single barrel pump action shotgun. While in the lounge area, you fired a single round into the television which went through the television and into the wall behind. You then went into a bedroom where the flatmate was in bed with her partner. She sat up and asked you what you were doing. Without saying anything, you pointed the shotgun at her and fired a round into the wall behind her bed. The impact of the shot forced the first victim back on to the bed and caused her vision to blur and ears to ring.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(a).
2      Arms Act 1983, s 53(2).
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1).

[5] You then stood in the doorway, preventing her and her partner, the second victim, from leaving the room.

[6] You pointed the shotgun at the first victim and demanded that she undertake a Google search and demanded the second victim’s shoes.

[7] The second victim managed to escape via the bedroom window. When you realised this you became agitated and said something to the effect, “dammit, I only have one left”.

[8] You then pointed the shotgun at the first victim and demanded that she drive you to where you wanted to go. She refused. You said you would “blow her fucking head off” and then demanded the keys to her vehicle. She then threw the keys to you. You pointed the shotgun at her and told her to be quiet as you were on the phone. She ran from the address. You left the address with her vehicle.

Offending at hospital

[9] You then drove to Waitakere Hospital and parked in the ambulance bay area near the entrance to the emergency department. You walked up to a marked police patrol vehicle and fired three shots into it from different angles. At…

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 Schuster

Details

AGLC: R v Schuster [2015] NZHC 2833
Case: [2015] NZHC 2833
Decision Date: 13 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Corrie Ron Schuster, was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for multiple charges including aggravated burglary, careless discharge of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. Schuster had pleaded guilty to these charges which stemmed from two separate incidents on October 12, 2014. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and his mental state at the time of the offences.

The key legal issues before the court were the appropriate starting point for sentencing, the impact of various aggravating and mitigating factors, and the extent of any discount for the defendant's guilty pleas. The Crown argued for a starting point of seven years for the aggravated burglary, with uplifts for the totality of the offending and the defendant's criminal history. The defence argued for a lower starting point of five years and submitted various mitigating factors including the defendant's mental state and his guilty pleas.

The court determined a starting point of six years for the aggravated burglary, uplifted by 12 months for the totality of the offending and by three months for the defendant's criminal history. The court accepted that the defendant was entitled to a 10% discount for his mental state at the time of the offending, though no further discount was afforded for remorse or rehabilitative efforts. The defendant received a 25% discount for his early guilty pleas. This resulted in an overall sentence of four years and eight months' imprisonment for the aggravated burglary, with concurrent sentences of two years for the other charges.

In summary, the court imposed a total sentence of six years and eight months' imprisonment, recognising the seriousness of the offences but also taking into account the defendant's mental state and early guilty pleas.

Orders