Stehlin v The the Queen - [2022] NZHC 1619

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2022-463-000084

[2022] NZHC 1619

BETWEEN
CHEROKEE STEHLIN

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 8 July 2022

Appearances:

J N Olsen for Appellant

A McConachy for Respondent

Judgment:

11 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence and refusal to grant name suppression]

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 July 2022 at 10.30 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

STEHLIN v R [2022] NZHC 1619 [11 July 2022]

[1] Mr Stehlin pleaded guilty in the District Court to charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and being in unlawful possession of a firearm. On 1 July 2022 Judge E P Paul sentenced Mr Stehlin to two years five months imprisonment.1

[2] Mr Stehlin appeals against sentence. He contends the Judge erred by fixing a starting point for the sentence that was too high and then provided him with insufficient discount to reflect mitigating factors. He says this resulted in a sentence that was manifestly excessive. He asks this Court to reduce the sentence to one of less than two years imprisonment. He then contends he should be sentenced to home detention rather than imprisonment.

[3] Mr Stehlin also appeals against a further decision the Judge made the same day declining to grant him permanent name suppression.2

The offending

[4] In the early hours of 27 September 202 Mr Stehlin and some associates were travelling in a motor vehicle towards Rotorua on Fairy Springs Road. They observed the victim and his partner walking along the footpath. The pair were intoxicated and the victim’s partner fell to the ground. Mr Stehlin saw this and believed the victim may have been assaulting his partner.

[5] Mr Stehlin got out of the vehicle carrying a shotgun. He then became involved in a verbal altercation with the victim that resulted in the two men pushing each other. At this point Mr Stehlin pointed the shotgun at the victim and shot him in his left leg. Mr Stehlin then got back into his vehicle and left the scene.

[6] The victim was able to call emergency services and then used his belt to apply a tourniquet to his leg. After being taken to hospital he was the subject of three separate operations to repair a fractured femur that had splintered in multiple places just above the knee joint. At that point there was a risk that his left leg may be amputated.

1 R v Stehlin [2022] NZDC 12480.
2 R v Stehlin [2022] NZDC 12192.

[7] After reading publicity about the incident Mr Stehlin went to the police station on the following day. Mr Stehlin told the police he thought it may have been him that was involved in the shooting. He said he had got a ride home from Mamaku and that as they drove along Fairy Springs Road, he saw what believed to be a male beating…

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 Stehlin v The the Queen

Details

AGLC: Stehlin v The the Queen [2022] NZHC 1619
Case: [2022] NZHC 1619
Decision Date: 11 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cherokee Stehlin appealed against his sentence and the refusal to grant him permanent name suppression. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand and the judgment was delivered by Justice Lang on 11 July 2022. The appeal against sentence argued that the starting point for the sentence was too high and insufficient discount was provided to reflect mitigating factors, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The appeal against refusal to grant name suppression argued that the court erred in its approach to the principles contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child and s 25(i) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The court found that the starting point for the sentence was within the available range and the total discount applied was towards the upper end of the available scale. The court also found that the appeal against refusal to grant name suppression could not succeed because none of the factors that applied in DP were present in the case of Mr Stehlin and there was no evidential basis to enable the court to conclude that Mr Stehlin is likely to suffer extreme hardship if his name and identifying particulars are published.

The appeal against sentence and the appeal against refusal to grant name suppression were dismissed.

Orders