Stansbury v The King

[2025] NZHC 2860

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2025-463-000067

[2025] NZHC 2860

BETWEEN

SAM STANSBURY

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing:

24 September 2025

Appearances:

L J L Hemi for Appellant

T T T S Taane for Respondent

Judgment:

30 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 September 2025 at 3.30 pm.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Pollett Legal Ltd, Tauranga Piki Mai Law, Whakatane

STANSBURY v R [2025] NZHC 2860 [30 September 2025]

Introduction

[1]        The appellant Sam  Stansbury  appeals  against  convictions  entered  by Judge L M Bidois in the District Court at Ōpōtiki on 18 February 2025 following a Judge-alone trial.1

[2]The appellant was convicted of the following charges:

(a)unlawful possession of a firearm;

(b)presenting a firearm at a named person;

(c)presenting a firearm at a second named person; and

(d)discharging a firearm with reckless disregard for the safety of others.

[3]The central issue is the trial Judge’s rejection of self-defence.

[4]The Crown opposes the appeal.

Background

[5]        The charges arose from an incident on 29 December 2023 at Ford Street, Ōpōtiki. The Crown alleged that the appellant rode a quad bike on the street while in possession of a shotgun, presented the gun at neighbours Casey  Loader  and  Edward Watene, and then discharged it with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[6]        The appellant denied these allegations, accepting only that he presented the firearm at Edward Watene and discharged the firearm once into the air in self-defence. The appellant also says that he had possession of the firearm for a lawful purpose, namely hunting.

1      R v Stansbury [2025] NZDC 3383.

The District Court decision

[7]        The Judge set out the four charges faced by Mr Stansbury and recorded that it was not disputed that Mr Stansbury had a shotgun or that he discharged it on the night in question.

[8]        The Judge set out the defence to each charge. Mr Stansbury said that he had the firearm for the purposes of hunting and not for any illegal activity and had only used it for the lawful purpose of self-defence; Mr Stansbury denied that the firearm was presented at the respective complainants. He said that he had fired a shot in the air and not at the complainants, and at the time did not have an intent to cause grievous bodily harm (as charge four was initially discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm).

[9]        The Judge recorded that the Crown called four civilian witnesses who had all seen different aspects of the incident which was short in duration. The witnesses were the two complainants Mr Loader and Mr Watene, Mr Watene’s partner and a neighbour. All witnesses saw the defendant with the firearm and witnessed the discharge of the firearm.

[10]      Mr Loader described a sawn-off shotgun taken from a black bag. He said that Mr Stansbury waved it at him, then pointed the gun at the…