R v Timmerman - [2022] NZHC 226

NOTE: SUPPRESSION ORDERS EXIST: SEE [28]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-063-917

[2022] NZHC 226

THE QUEEN

v

CORNELIUS CHRISTIAAN TIMMERMAN

Hearing: 18 February 2022

Appearances:

B Vaili for Crown

J Gurnick for Defendant

Sentence:

18 February 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

R v TIMMERMAN [2022] NZHC 226 [18 February 2022]

[1] Mr Timmerman, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to two charges of being in unlawful possession of prohibited firearms, four charges of unlawful possession of prohibited magazines for firearms, two charges of being in unlawful possession of explosives (ammunition) and one charge of trespass.

[2] The most serious charges are those relating to the unlawful possession of prohibited firearms which carry maximum sentences of five years imprisonment. The charges of being in unlawful possession of ammunition carry maximum sentences of four years imprisonment. The remaining charges other than the charge of trespass carry a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. The trespass charge carries a maximum sentence of three months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $1,000.

[3] You entered your guilty plea after I gave you a sentence indication on 2 December 2021.1 I do not propose to repeat the matters contained in the sentence indication. They inform the basis on which I selected a starting point for the sentence to be imposed and the discounts I gave at that stage for mitigating factors. My sentence indication will be appended to these sentencing remarks and will form part of them.

Background

[4] You pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This records that on 10 March 2020 you went to Rotorua Police Station and asked to speak to a police officer who was either not there or was unavailable. When you were told you were not able to speak to the police officer, you became angry and began to act in a disorderly manner. The police asked you to leave the police station on several occasions. When you refused to do so you were arrested and charged with trespass. You began resisting arrest and you were charged with that as well. You were then held in custody at the police station until your first appearance in Court the following day.

[5] Overnight the police obtained a search warrant in relation to a campervan you had left parked outside the police station. When they searched the campervan, they found a prohibited AR15 semi-automatic rifle, a prohibited 30 round magazine and four live .223 calibre rounds of ammunition. Two days later, the police obtained a

1 R v Timmerman [2021] NZHC 3287.

further search warrant to search an address where you had been living in a caravan. In a shipping container at the address they found another AR15 semi-automatic rifle. They also found three prohibited firearm magazines and a substantial quantity of .223 and .22 calibre ammunition.

[6] It is now common ground that both…

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 Timmerman

Details

AGLC: R v Timmerman [2022] NZHC 226
Case: [2022] NZHC 226
Decision Date: 18 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, Mr Cornelius Christiaan Timmerman appeared for sentencing following his guilty plea to charges of unlawful possession of prohibited firearms, magazines, ammunition, and trespass. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the charges' severity, mitigating factors, and the defendant's background. The most serious charges related to the unlawful possession of prohibited firearms, which carried a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. The court had to decide whether to impose a custodial or non-custodial sentence, considering the defendant's lack of previous convictions, his cooperation with the authorities, and his mental health issues. The court also had to determine if a suppression order should be made to protect the defendant's identity.

The court considered the defendant's age, lack of previous convictions, and the fact that he had spent significant time on electronically monitored bail. The court also took into account the defendant's mental health issues, including autism and post-traumatic stress disorder, which were considered to have contributed to his offending. The court concluded that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate, and the defendant was sentenced to nine months of supervision for all charges except trespass, for which he was convicted and discharged. The court also made an order for the firearms and ammunition found in the defendant's possession to be forfeited to the Crown. The court declined to grant permanent suppression of the defendant's name, but the interim orders suppressing his name and identifying details from publication would remain in force until 31 March 2022.

Orders