Schattanek v Police - [2025] NZHC 1586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2025-404-92
[2025] NZHC 1586

BETWEEN ZALMANN OTTO SCHATTANEK
Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 10 June 2025 Appearances: D Perić for Appellant
G Wilkins for Respondent

Judgment: 16 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J

This judgment is delivered by me on 16 June 2025 at 2.00 pm.

………………………………
Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

Counsel:
J Verry, Barrister, Auckland

SCHATTANEK v POLICE [2025] NZHC 1586 [16 June 2025]

Introduction

[1] On 4 August 2024, Zalmann Schattanek was driving in front of the victim’s vehicle and slowed while passing over a speed bump. Once past the speed bump, Mr Schattanek accelerated and made an obscene gesture at the victim out of his driver- side window. Mr Schattanek then approached a second speed bump and slowed to an almost complete stop. The frustrated victim honked his horn. Mr Schattanek alighted from his vehicle with a concealed knife, approached the victim’s car, reached through the open driver-side window, and slashed the victim’s right arm twice. He then returned to his car, drove home and threw the knife out of the window onto the road. The Police recovered the knife and Mr Schattanek was arrested shortly afterwards.

[2] Mr Schattanek pleaded guilty to one charge of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 He was sentenced on 14 February 2025 to 21 months’ imprisonment by Judge Thomas in the Waitakere District Court.2 Mr Schattanek now appeals his sentence arguing that a sentence of imprisonment, rather than home detention, was manifestly excessive. The Crown opposes the appeal.

District Court decision

[3] The Judge identified the aggravating features of the offending as being the use of a knife, the potential for very serious injury or death, the extent of the injury on the victim (the emotional and psychological toll) and the vulnerability of the victim. His Honour adopted a starting point of four years’ imprisonment, the lowest available under R v Taueki for this type of offending,3 notwithstanding his comment that something “far higher would have been justified.”4 The Judge then provided a 25 per cent reduction for Mr Schattanek’s guilty plea, a 10 per cent reduction for his youth, a five per cent reduction for his lack of previous convictions, and a 15 per cent reduction for personal circumstances. This resulted in a provisional end sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(1). Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      New Zealand Police v Schattanek [2025] NZDC 2970 [Decision under appeal].
3      R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA).
4 Decision under appeal, above n 2, at [6].

[4] His Honour considered whether a community-based sentence would be appropriate. The Judge assessed the recommendations of the probation report and attempted to balance the importance of “keeping people out of prison” and the public interest in denunciation, deterrence and protection. His Honour concluded that a “sentence short of imprisonment would seriously undermine…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Schattanek v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 1586
Decision Date: 16 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Zalmann Otto Schattanek appealed his sentence of 21 months' imprisonment for injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Schattanek argued that a sentence of imprisonment, rather than home detention, was manifestly excessive. The Crown opposed the appeal. The sentencing Judge had considered various factors including the aggravating features of the offence, the potential for serious injury, the emotional and psychological impact on the victim, and Schattanek's youth, neurodiversity, lack of previous convictions, and prospects for rehabilitation. The Judge had concluded that a community-based sentence would undermine public confidence in the court's ability to protect the public and act in the community's best interest. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Schattanek's counsel argued that home detention was more appropriate given Schattanek's youth, neurodiversity, and rehabilitative prospects. The Crown, however, maintained that the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public outweighed the interest in keeping individuals out of prison. The Court found that the sentence of imprisonment was indeed manifestly excessive, considering Schattanek's age, background, and demonstrated rehabilitative prospects. The Court substituted the sentence with six and a half months' home detention, accompanied by special conditions including completion of anger management and rehabilitative alcohol and drug programs, and no contact with the victim. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was quashed and substituted accordingly.

Orders