^{New Zealand! 2026} Jury returns verdict for K Rd trio who pack-raped German tourist on New Year’s Day, Changing sexual norms among young people a growing concern — report, ‘Compassion and unity’: Seven years since Christchurch mosque attacks, Hawke’s Bay human trafficker Joseph Matamata loses sentence bid, DNA breakthrough links serial rapist Malcolm Rewa to horrific 1988 teen attack, Man admits killing woman on bus by stabbing her 20 times after she ignored him, Verdict looms for pair caught with 17.9kgs of pounamu at Auckland Airport, Identity finally revealed for female teacher who groomed 11yo student, Rare sentence ordered for teen killer who shot four others amid feud, New Zealand restricts the spread of a reviled killer’s views by hampering his attempts to gain fame, ‘Heartbreaking’: Mentally unwell man killed his stepfather after meds were changed, ‘Executed for profit’: Trio jailed for teen’s mafia-style killing at pre-dug grave, ‘Moment of madness’: Black Power member instigated hospital gunfight with rivals, Sophie Elliott’s killer up for parole 18 years after her murder, Whangārei sex attacker Haydn Teoneroa Christy refused release by Parole Board, Four charged after 100km pursuit across Waikato following Thames robbery, Officer hit by bottle as 1000 youths clash with police in Coromandel holiday spots, ‘Utterly appalling’: Outrage as Gloriavale sex offender Howard Temple seen at market

A mother and son accused of attempting to illegally export pounamu to China are nearing the end of a landmark trial at Manukau District Court.

The case is believed to be the first prosecution of its kind by Customs and centres on allegations the pair tried to export more than the legal limit of the culturally significant stone.

Under the Customs Export Prohibition (Pounamu) Order 2021, it is illegal for a single exporter to take more than 5kgs of raw pounamu out of New Zealand without proper consent.

In July 2024, Boyuan Zhang and his mother, Xin Li, were found carrying 17.9kgs of pounamu in luggage bound for China at Auckland International Airport.

Just two months earlier, Zhang’s father and Li’s husband, Jiangbo Zhang, was also found attempting to take pounamu to China.

Customs discovered and seized two stones in his luggage weighing 61kgs in total, but the boarding gate closed before the agency could speak with him.

Now, his family members are under the spotlight, with the trial earlier this week opening with karakia and song from members of South Island iwi Ngāi Tahu.

While not a party to the case, the tribe holds legal ownership of all naturally occurring pounamu within its tribal boundaries under the Ngāi Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997.

Zhang directly addressed members of the tribe while giving his evidence.

“I want to say to the friends sitting at the back,” he said. “I 100% respect your culture. Actually, I love the culture. That’s why I love the stone.”

Customs discovered nine stones in total in his and his mother’s carry-on and checked-in luggage.

Exporting pounamu in quantities over 5kgs is only permitted with the approval of the Customs Minister, following advice from Ngāi Tahu.

For raw pounamu sourced from the Arahura River, any export exceeding this limit requires consent from the Mawhera Incorporation, a group representing the area’s original Māori landowners.

The defendants were not travelling alone and initially planned to give some of the pounamu to two others to carry in their luggage.

Xiaoxen Li, a friend of Xin Li, was booked on the same flight and had earlier agreed to carry a 2.6kg stone in her carry-on bag.

But she told the court the plan fell through at the airport, and no pounamu was found in her possession.

Zhang said another person, who 1News is unable to name, was also travelling with the pair to China before catching another flight to London. They had also been expected to carry some of the pounamu.

But that arrangement was abandoned when the defendants realised that person’s luggage would be heading directly to London.

The prosecution asked Zhang whether he accepted that at that point, there was too much pounamu for just two people.

“If you count it as two people, yes,” he said.

Zhang told the court he still believed the weight of the pounamu could be shared between the group, even if the others weren’t carrying stones.

When questioned by Customs officers at the airport, it appeared Li shared the same view.

A recording of the interview was played in court.

“Every person is allowed 5kg, and there were four of us, so really, it was lawful,” she said through an interpreter.

The court heard Zhang weighed most of the stones at home before arriving at the airport and recorded a total weight of “less than 15kg”.

But not all the stones were weighed by him.

Zhang claimed he’d forgotten a stone was already in one of the bags and he didn’t think it was necessary to weigh two smaller stones.

He accepted that it was his idea to get the pounamu to China.

The meaning of “single exporter” is pivotal in the case.

Asked about it, Li said: “Two different concepts – exportation and I carried myself.”

She was then asked if she was saying she didn’t export it because she didn’t sell it for money, to which she replied “Yes”.

Closing submissions are expected in about two weeks, with a verdict to follow.

Warning: This story deals with allegations of sexual assault and may be upsetting.

Three young men caught on video whisking an intoxicated teen tourist from a Karangahape Rd bar to a secluded industrial carpark in the early hours of New Year’s Day last year have been found guilty of pack rape.

The defendants – known as B, O and S due to continuing name suppression – took turns nervously standing in the dock in the High Court at Auckland this afternoon as the jury foreman read aloud the unanimous verdicts following roughly nine hours of deliberations that started yesterday.

Justice Mathew Downs ordered the men, who had previously been on bail, to await sentencing in jail. That hearing is scheduled for May.

The judge explained to jurors the concept of “vicarious trauma”, which he said could be triggered by the “exceptionally distressing evidence in this case” – especially the jury’s repeated viewings of CCTV footage that he said showed the rapes as they occurred.

If it was any consolation, he added, “I consider your verdicts entirely commensurate with the evidence”.

The two-and-a-half-week trial centred in large part around CCTV footage – both from outside Central Auckland’s crowded Family Bar and from the conversely empty Avondale carpark where the defendants’ van stopped for about 10 minutes that morning. Prosecutors and defence lawyers promoted vastly different interpretations of what the videos showed.

“The idea that this young backpacker … would want to be driven off to some dark, deserted part of the city … to have sex with these three young men – it just defies logic,” Crown prosecutor Fiona Culliney told jurors during her closing address. “No reasonable, sober person could have believed she was consenting. They had no regard for her at all.”

The 19-year-old was likely unconscious when the trio violated her, but at a minimum, she was so obviously drunk that she could not have consented, Culliney said.

The complainant has only patchy memories of the night but appeared to be in agony as she described to a police interviewer how she woke up to find a man she didn’t know in the process of intercourse, while others in the vehicle spoke to each other in a language she didn’t recognise.

All three men, ages 19 and 20 at the time of the offences, denied the rape charges, but for different reasons.

B, whose DNA was found on the inside crotch of the complainant’s clothes, said he engaged in consensual sexual activity with the woman but did not have penetrative sex. O, whose DNA was found during a gynaecological exam of the victim, admitted to having sex with her but claimed it was she who propositioned him.

S admitted he was also in the van but said he was asleep in the back row throughout the incident. DNA testing for him, which he seemed to encourage during an interview with police, was inconclusive. But a witness told police S had bragged later that morning about all three defendants having sex with a woman who was “too drunk”.

Each defendant faced three counts of rape – one for being the principal offender and two for aiding or encouraging his co-defendants.

B and O were found guilty of all three charges. Jurors found S guilty of a single charge, convicted of raping the woman himself but not of helping his mates.

‘Sinister turn’
The complainant recalled to authorities that, prior to her memories going blank, she had consumed a bottle of wine, two vodka drinks, a glass of prosecco and a Corona as she ushered in the New Year with friends from her hostel.

At some point, she met B on the dancefloor at the K Rd bar and CCTV showed them kissing. That was consensual, prosecutors conceded, even though the complainant said she had no memory of it. But later, as the two exited the club, footage showed the woman swaying, stumbling and needing to be pulled up from the ground by B after sitting down with him.

Prosecutors noted that she appeared at one point to push B away, although she later embraced him again. The defence suggested it was too subtle and too brief to read anything into the push.

Sometime around that point, at 2.44am, she sent her friends a one-word text – “gilde” – which she said was a misspelling of the German word for help. Defence lawyers noted “gilde” could also be translated as “team” or “group”, although the complainant flatly dismissed that usage as uncommon, outdated and a word she had never once used before.

O and S, meanwhile, were standing across the street, watching and waiting for a signal, according to the Crown. A short time later, after B handed them the keys to a mutual friend’s van, they ran off and retrieved it.

When O and S pulled up outside the club in the van, the door was opened from inside before B ushered the woman inside – a sign, Culliney said, of a highly coordinated predatory operation.

“Things took a sinister turn for her when she got into that van,” the prosecutor told jurors. “She had absolutely no idea what they were planning.”

‘A group effort’
Instead of taking her to her nearby hostel, she was driven away from the hustle and bustle of the city centre and to the otherwise empty carpark of an aluminium business in Avondale.

“It’s not a romantic rendezvous spot,” Culliney said, ridiculing O’s testimony from a day earlier that he not only knew about the camera but was thankful for it so jurors could see he is innocent.

The prosecutor described the assertion as “the most startling” of the many lies O told in the witness box.

Prosecutors said the footage, which was at times hard to decipher after having been zoomed 300% and enhanced, showed that B was already naked and on top of the woman in the middle row of seats at the van pulled into the carpark.

O, the driver, is then seen looking back towards the middle row.

“The idea he doesn’t know what’s going on beggars belief,” Culliney said of O’s testimony, describing O as having then walked around the van and “waited his turn” at the middle door.

“Within seconds of [B] finishing … he’s on top of her,” the prosecutor said of O. “No niceties. No changing positions. [She] is unable to move. She was so intoxicated and likely unconscious that she didn’t know this man had sex with her.”

O told jurors the woman had propositioned him for sex while he was still in the driver’s seat.

After less than 90 seconds on top of the woman, O then “casually” walked back around to the driver’s seat, where B was sitting naked, and chatted with him, Culliney said of the video. That, she said, was when S “climbs out from the back and crawls on top of her”, repositioning her body with “no regard for her safety, for her comfort”.

When confronted with the video by police, S said he still wasn’t sure the figure was him even though he acknowledged it was just him and the other two men in the van – and the other two were clearly seen elsewhere. He claimed he had no memory of it.

The CCTV ends with B getting back on top of the woman before the car leaves, Culliney told jurors.

“They’re encouraging each other,” Culliney said. “They’re taking photos. They’re watching each other. This is a group effort.”

‘Please help me’
At 3.43am, after the van had left the carpark, the woman texted her friends in German: “Can someone please help me?” O suggested she was seeking help getting the forgotten address of Hobson Lodge after the group got lost – heading to Hobsonville instead.

At 4.21am, she was left about 35 metres from the hostel.

“They pushed her out – didn’t even let her get her underwear on,” Culliney said. “That’s not the way you behave with a woman if you’ve just had a very lovely. consensual sexual experience.”

B told police he gave her a hug before opening the door for her and bidding her farewell. O told jurors the woman seemed not only happy, but thankful for the ride and apologetic for having gotten them lost.

But witnesses at the hostel said the woman was so inconsolable that she tried to run into traffic, telling one friend repeatedly, “You don’t know what they did to me.” She was taken to the hospital via ambulance after others at the hostel called 111.

The woman estimated there had been three to five men in the van and said “it was more than just one of them” who had been touching her, although she couldn’t give specifics. As a sign of how drunk she was, prosecutors noted that she told police she didn’t think the driver – confirmed to be O – had participated. But he would later admit he had intercourse with her.

A blood test taken at 8.40am, roughly five hours after the incident, showed her to have an alcohol level of 102mg per 100 millilitres of blood – double the legal driving limit. A toxicologist gave a rough estimate that her alcohol level could have been around 180mg – almost four times the limit – or higher while in the Avondale carpark.

A physician specialising in sexual assault cases told jurors she couldn’t do a full, proper exam due to “grossly swollen” genitalia worse than she had ever seen before – although she acknowledged that in itself is not proof of nonconsent.

Culliney argued that the idea the woman would have been “happy” and normal on the way home despite that much pain shows the men’s accounts to be “a complete fabrication” aimed at turning “what was inarguably a terrible pack rape into a fantasy”.

Regret or rape?
Lawyers for all three men pointed repeatedly during their closing addresses to the very high standard needed – “beyond a reasonable doubt” – to find someone guilty of a crime. They also each emphasised the need to resist being swayed by emotion.

Following both of those directions, they argued, would result in a realisation that the evidence presented during the trial fell well short of what was needed for a conviction.

Defence lawyer Petrina Stokes, representing B, spent much of her closing address playing the same CCTV the Crown referred to, but with her own interpretation. How could the kissing outside the nightclub be consensual but then 15 minutes later the woman’s ability to consent disappeared? she asked.

“That just does not make sense here,” Stokes said.

It’s reasonable, Stokes argued, that the woman got carried away inside the van as they continued to kiss and perhaps regretted it later. It’s not reasonable, she argued, to believe the woman was unconscious. The video, she argued, showed the woman’s arms draped over B’s neck.

“Drunk people can and do have consensual sex every day around this country,” Stokes said. “Some may not be able to remember it in the morning, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t consent at the time.”

Annabel Cresswell, representing O, shared similar thoughts.

“None of us want to see a woman crying and that upset after a night out,” she said, acknowledging that it seemed “a bit sordid” with all three defendants in the vehicle.

“At the end of the night … she might have felt silly,” Cresswell added. “They didn’t treat her particularly nicely afterwards.”

But that doesn’t mean she wasn’t consenting at the time, or at the very least acting in a way that led O to reasonably believe she was consenting, the lawyer argued. She urged jurors not to automatically accept the Crown’s interpretation of what could be seen in the CCTV.

“It’s simply not the smoking gun the Crown thinks it is,” she argued. “You can’t see much inside the van [but] the Crown keeps insisting and advising what you can see.

“It’s like The Emperor’s New Clothes. If the Crown keeps shouting you can see something, that doesn’t mean it’s there.”

Lawyer Annabel Maxwell-Scott, representing S, noted that her client was seen the least in both videos. She emphasised that there was no DNA linking him to the woman and the complainant herself had no memory of S having intercourse with her.

The woman did tell police she recalled a man in the back seat, where it has been confirmed S was, closing his belt as she emerged from a blackout. But to convict her client on that, Maxwell-Scott argued, would be “a huge leap”.

As for S allegedly telling a friend that all three of the men had sex with the woman, the defence lawyer noted that the witness who told police that later claimed memory issues as he gave evidence in trial. But even if S did say that, it might be proof only of male bravado, she suggested.

“Teenage men have been known to lie about these things, and exaggerate to their mates,” she said. “It does not prove he actually did have sex with [her].”

‘A whopper of a lie’
But prosecutors suggested jurors should be concerned with the number of lies each man was caught telling in their discussions with police or in the witness box.

She described the men’s explanations, including assertions by all three men that their memories were hazy because they had been drinking for the first time, as a “calculated” attempt to cover up their crimes.

It makes no sense they would have taken a friend’s van when O’s own car was nearby unless they wanted “more room for them to do what they wanted to her”, Culliney argued, pointing out that CCTV shows O and S “sprinting” to the vehicle with “urgency” as B stayed close to the woman outside the nightclub.

“[The woman] had begun to show she was not interested … and [B] knew he had to act fast to get her into that vehicle,” Culliney said.

The prosecutor described O’s claim that he didn’t know S was even in the van until they got back as “a whopper of a lie” and “ludicrous” in light of what was seen on the video.

She also noted that the next day, B went onto the Ministry of Justice website and looked up sexual assault statistics for New Zealand.

“It’s hardly something you do if you’ve just had an incredible, consensual interaction with a girl,” Culliney said.

The men had been set to lose name suppression at the conclusion of the trial. A different High Court judge denied their interim suppression requests last year, but the decision was overturned in December by the Court of Appeal.

Justice Downs said today that he preferred to deal with suppression at sentencing, allowing “the dust to settle” and to give lawyers time to consider if they will file fresh applications for permanent name suppression.

“I should foreshadow that there is obvious public interest in the publication of name,” he told the lawyers, adding later while addressing the defendants: “There is a very real chance name suppression will be lifted come sentencing.”

An Auckland primary school teacher who groomed an 11-year-old boy – sending nude photos before spending the night with him – can now be identified, four months after she was sentenced to home detention.

Interim suppression lapsed today for Tamlyn Estee May, 35, after she lost bids in both the District and High Courts to keep her name permanently secret.

May’s lawyer had argued in October that naming her would cause extreme hardship to her own family – some of whom she had not yet revealed the charges to – and that it would risk identifying her victim.

But the victim’s parents told North Shore District Court judge Paul Murray that they strongly opposed continued suppression. The judge agreed the risk was low that their son would be identified by naming May.

A new law that went into effect late last year requires consent from the victim for a person convicted of a sexual offence to receive permanent name suppression. But May was exempt from that law because of the timing of her charges and sentencing.

“The starting point is the principle of open justice,” Judge Murray said, noting that May had already been outed on social media despite interim suppression having been in place for the year leading up to her sentencing.

“Many in the community are already aware of your offending,” he explained, adding that the impact on her family while unfortunate would be a normal consequence of criminal offending rather than extreme hardship.

But she then appealed the decision to the High Court at Auckland.

In a decision issued on December 15, Justice James MacGillivray largely agreed with his District Court counterpart.

“As the Judge [Murray] concluded, ongoing shame and embarrassment are not uncommon for people associated with offenders,” Justice MacGillivray noted.

“There is no evidence that this will amount to extreme hardship for those associated with Ms May.”

But he also noted the advanced state of May’s pregnancy. To reduce stress in her third trimester, he agreed to allow interim suppression to continue until one month after her due date.

“The public interest in open justice and the views of the victim’s family are met by declining permanent suppression, but there is no urgency in permitting publication,” the judge explained.

‘Don’t tell anyone’
May pleaded guilty last year to grooming for sexual conduct with a young person, which is punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment, and indecency with a boy under 12, which carries a 10-year maximum sentence.

The boy was not the defendant’s pupil but attended the same school, which cannot be identified for legal reasons.

Court documents state they messaged each other via social media and Google Docs, used by teachers for grading, for an indeterminate period prior to the boy “asking her out” in August 2024.

Before that, the teacher had repeatedly encouraged the child to do so.

“We would make a good couple,” she wrote at one point, according to the summary of facts she agreed to.

“If you ask me out, I’ll say ‘yes’,” she said at another point.

After the boy did so, the woman repeatedly told him she loved him.

The defendant attempted to cover her tracks by communicating through Snapchat, which auto-erases messages, and by erasing their real-time conversations on Google Docs.

Court documents outlined in detail a 24-day period in August and September 2024 that followed the shift to what the defendant called “dating”.

The two met unsupervised on multiple occasions, including walks at an Auckland park in which she held the boy’s hand.

During one scheduled walk, the two decided to instead go to a home belonging to the defendant’s parents, who were on an overseas trip.

The two wrestled, at which point the teacher grabbed the boy and kissed him.

She also, during that period, sent multiple explicit photos of herself partially or fully undressed, telling him: “Don’t tell anyone, this is just for you”.

On September 6, 2024, she slept in the same bed as the boy while staying at his father’s house, she acknowledged in the agreed facts.

‘Trauma-bonding’
Defence lawyer David Jones, KC, argued during the sentencing hearing that May had been suffering a psychological issue in which she saw herself, as if in virtual reality, as a fellow 11-year-old.

It stemmed from trauma in her own childhood, he said, describing the situation as “trauma-bonding”.

May was born in South Africa but moved to New Zealand as a teenager to flee violence there, the court was told.

“We’re not talking about some sort of predatory behaviour or interest,” Jones argued.

“She had a real interest in helping young people with behavioural issues. And she was of the same ilk. She would regress back to the age where she was 11.”

There was no need for a custodial sentence, or for May’s name to be included on the sex offender registry, he argued.

Jones pointed repeatedly to the case of fellow teacher Myah Adams, who was sentenced in the Auckland District Court earlier that year to a short term of imprisonment before the High Court decided on appeal that she should instead serve home detention.

In that case, Jones said, the offending was much more serious because it involved sex acts on the 15-year-old victim. The most physical contact that was proven in the May case, he said, was that his client and the boy inappropriately held hands.

Crown solicitor Alysha McClintock noted that an important distinction between the two cases is the ages of the two victims. In the current case, she pointed out, the victim was much younger and the defendant older.

Crown Solicitor Alysha McClintock. Photo / Michael CraigCrown Solicitor Alysha McClintock. Photo / Michael Craig

“This offending has caused a large amount of anger and hurt,” she said, describing the conduct as “on a path to doing something more sexual”.

However, she acknowledged that home detention was an option for the judge based on prior cases, including Adams’.

‘Unimaginable betrayal’
Ultimately, the judge agreed to the defence requests to keep May off the sex offender registry and out of prison.

But it came with an admonishment: “Your offending has had wide and devastating impacts.”

The judge pointed to victim impact statements that had been read aloud in court earlier.

“My son’s innocence and trust have been irreparably damaged,” the boy’s mother wrote, describing the “unimaginable betrayal” of a teacher who was inflicting trauma while pretending to help the boy.

“Justice in this case must … send a clear message that such actions are intolerable.”

The boy’s father described the weekly hour-and-a-half round trip he takes each week to take his son to ongoing counselling sessions.

He recalled seeing changes in his son’s behaviour prior to the defendant’s “self-absorbed, manipulating, cold-hearted actions” being exposed.

She had tried to convince the parents to blame the school and suggested she help homeschool the boy – all so she could get better access to him, he alleged.

“She doesn’t have any remorse for the stomach-churning abuse she subjected our son to,” he wrote. “I believe [she] should be banned from going anywhere near any school in this country.”

While acknowledging the family’s frustration, Judge Murray said he had to weigh that against psychological reports finding her to be a low risk of reoffending.

He ordered six months’ home detention, followed by six months of post-detention conditions. It reflected credits for her guilty pleas, rehabilitation efforts, lack of prior convictions and remorse.

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — In a near-empty courthouse, in front of almost no one, the appeal by New Zealand’s most reviled killer was heard in muted fashion with little mention of the details of the country’s deadliest mass shooting.

Such is New Zealand’s desire to smother the racist motivations of Brenton Tarrant, who murdered 51 Muslims praying at two mosques in the city of Christchurch in 2019. Tarrant, a self-professed white supremacist, referred to other perpetrators of hate-fueled massacres when he committed his attack and other mass shooters have cited his actions since.

Yet it’s rare to encounter the Australian man’s words in New Zealand, the country where he migrated with a plan to amass semiautomatic guns and carry out the slaughter.

Officials have sought to curb the spread of his views, including through a legal ban on his racist manifesto and a video he livestreamed of the shooting. The effort to prevent public exposure to Tarrant is perhaps most apparent in New Zealand’s courts, where he sought this week to recant his guilty pleas.

A three-judge panel in the Court of Appeal in Wellington heard final arguments Friday by Crown lawyers opposing Tarrant’s application to have his admissions in 2020 to charges of terrorism, murder and attempted murder discarded. He is serving life in prison without a chance of parole, but the case would return to court for a full trial if he is allowed to revoke his guilty pleas.

Opposing lawyers say his appeal has no merit
The 35-year-old told the court this week he didn’t want to plead guilty and made the “irrational” admissions during a “nervous breakdown” induced by his solitary and austere prison conditions. But Crown lawyers opposing his appeal bid said in their response Friday there was no evidence for the claims that he was seriously mentally ill.

Experts had ruled Tarrant was fit to enter pleas, and his former lawyers and prison staff didn’t raise concerns either.

“It’s difficult to see what more could’ve been done,” Crown lawyer Barnaby Hawes told the court. Tarrant, he added, “is an unreliable witness and his narrative should be treated with caution.”

The evidence against Tarrant — including his own livestream of the massacre, in which he filmed his face — was so overwhelming that a guilty verdict was assured if he had fought the charges in a trial, the lawyers said.

“Pleading guilty to charges where his guilt is certain can’t be seen to be irrational,” Hawes said.

The subdued hearing defies the tension over the case
One topic nearly absent from the weeklong hearing was any mention of the hateful motivations Tarrant cited for committing the crimes. Lawyers both supporting and opposing Tarrant’s bid avoided reference to his white supremacist views, and proceedings unfolded in the quiet and stolid way New Zealand court cases usually do.

But there were signs the court sought to limit the public’s exposure to Tarrant, as New Zealand’s justice system has done before. Almost nobody was permitted to view the gunman’s evidence and the appeal bid unfolded in front of nine reporters, nine lawyers, a few court staff, and an empty public gallery.

Tarrant was permitted to watch the proceedings by video conference from Auckland Prison, but his image was not visible in the courtroom except when he gave evidence. Apart from in Christchurch, where the bereaved and wounded survivors watched a livestream of the hearing at the local courthouse, the shooter was invisible.

The approach New Zealand has enacted — in which even news outlets name the shooter as few times as possible in each article — stands at odds with the publicity given to trials for racist mass killers before, including widely covered proceedings for the Norwegian murderer Anders Breivik, whom Tarrant years later cited as an inspiration. Crown lawyers urged the appeal judges Friday to thwart the prospect of the matter returning to court in a lengthy public trial, which would happen if the Australian’s bid to recant his guilt was successful.

“Keeping this case alive is a source of immense distress” to the shooter’s victims, Crown lawyer Madeleine Laracy said. “It doesn’t allow them to heal.”

A swift ruling isn’t expected
The judges’ decision will be released later. New Zealand’s appeals court delivers 90% of its judgments within three months of a hearing’s end, according to the Court’s website.

If his bid to revoke his guilty pleas is unsuccessful, Tarrant’s case will return to the appeals court for a later hearing where he will seek a review of his life sentence.

An Auckland teen who appeared to methodically shoot four other young men at the culmination of a lengthy feud – killing one – has been given a somewhat rare non-life sentence for murder.

Grey Lynn resident Kayden Stanaway, now 20, claimed he fired in self-defence in September 2024 when 18-year-old Maxwel-Dee Repia showed up across the street from Stanaway’s home with four others.

The two enemies had been involved in numerous violent encounters that year, and just that night Repia had threatened to kidnap the defendant’s father, court documents state. Repia and others had also thrown rocks at the defendant’s house earlier that day, smashing a window.

But messaging recovered by police also indicates Repia had arrived that night wanting a one-on-one fight without guns. He was gunned down anyway, dying in the street.

Although the judge, along with prosecutors, accepted that Stanaway was fearful for his safety, it was also agreed by all sides that his firing of the weapon was unreasonable and therefore constituted reckless murder.

“This involved recklessness at the very highest level,” Justice Graham Lang said today as Stanaway appeared in the High Court at Auckland for sentencing.

He ordered a finite sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment, with a stipulation that he serve at least half of that before he can begin to apply for parole.

For the vast majority of murder convictions in New Zealand, defendants are ordered to serve a life sentence with a minimum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years. A life term means that even after release, the defendant is always on parole and can be called back to prison at any time.

But this was one of the exceptions to the rule, Justice Lang said today, noting that prosecutors agreed such an outcome would be “manifestly excessive”.

Nevertheless, the judge added, the shooting “has had catastrophic consequences for his whanau and friends” and must be denounced.

History of animosity

A feud had started between Repia’s group and Stanaway earlier that year after the defendant started dating an ex-girlfriend of someone in the other group, according to the official account outlined in court documents.

Around that period, Repia tried to punch the defendant through a car window, the agreed facts state. The two teens squared off on that occasion but didn’t end up fighting.

The next documented confrontation happened in late February that year, when a 13-year-old friend of the defendant was allegedly beaten up and robbed by Repia and his associates. Stanaway and his associates retaliated by doing the same to one of Repia’s friends.

Stanaway claimed to authorities that on St Patrick’s Day that year, Repia and some others showed up at his home, initially threatening to shoot his 13-year-old sister. When Stanaway and his father confronted the group, armed with a hammer and a crowbar, Stanaway claimed that Repia again escalated the situation.

“Mr Stanaway’s account is that Mr Repia pulled out the apparent firearm and pointed it at [the defendant’s father’s] head, pulling the trigger,” court documents state. “The gun made a clicking sound but no bullets were released.”

Police, however, were never called.

Two weeks later, the defendant claimed, Repia and his associates showed up at the home around 1am “armed with a crowbar and ready for a fight”. They allegedly smashed windows to the house and to Stanaway’s car, tagging it with spray paint.

“Mr Repia and others attempted to enter the house through the front door; however, Mr Stanaway, his father and his cousin were able to hold the door closed and prevent their entry,” court documents state.

Police were later called to report the damage. A short time later, a fragile truce between the two groups was reached.

But animosity reignited four-and-a-half months later, in mid-August, when Repia and his associates allegedly forced their way into Stanaway’s family home and confronted his father and 17-year-old sister. Stanaway was not home, but the group demanded the keys to his new motorbike, the agreed facts state.

The intruders were holding bottles as weapons, Stanaway’s father would later recount. As they left the house, Stanaway’s sister called the police. The defendant’s father called him.

“Mr Stanaway raced home and saw Mr Repia and his associates out on the street near his house,” court documents state. “He witnessed one of the associates assault his friend with a bottle to the head while his friend was on the ground.

“While they were assaulting his friend on the ground, Mr Stanaway drove his car at members of Mr Repia’s group, hitting at least one of them with his car. He then circled back around to where his friend was on the ground, in an attempt to block him from a further attack.

“This continued until the police arrived.”

By August 28, one week before the shooting, Stanaway was sending threats to Repia’s group via social media messages.

“Tell your big homie Max to pull up got a clip with his name on it,” he wrote in one message, referring to ammunition.

A friend of Repia’s, who would later be shot in the face, ended the exchange by sending a photo of himself holding a gun.

‘I’ll kidnap your dad’

Earlier on the day of the shooting, Repia and his mates had filmed themselves chasing Stanaway in his car after randomly coming across him on the road.

Repia and some of the others who would later be shot then went to Stanaway’s home and threw the rocks, documents state. Stanaway’s father called police around 4.22pm, followed by a call to his son.

As the evening progressed, Stanaway stood outside his home with a rottweiler dog and a group of friends who had arrived for his brother’s 14th birthday party.

Stanaway at one point called Repia. In a follow-up message, he wrote: “Or I’ll kidnap your dad.”

At 6.01pm, Repia said he was headed to the house.

“Wait there,” he wrote. “If ur not there then im gna Kidnap ur dad.”

Repia said he wanted “just 1on1s” so it wouldn’t cause as much of a scene. “No fanas,” the murder victim said, using Samoan slang for guns.

Repia and four others parked near the Grey Lynn house about 6.45pm.

“As Mr Repia’s group approached the defendants’ group, a heated verbal exchange ensued that was escalating,” the summary of facts states. “Mr Stanaway alleges that two of Mr Repia’s associates threatened to shoot the rottweiler belonging to Mr Stanaway’s associate.”

Stanaway remained next to the open door of a white Mazda parked outside his home.

“Mr Stanaway, believing that at least one of the complainants had a firearm in their hands, reached into the Mazda vehicle and armed himself with a long-barreled .22 calibre rifle,” court documents state.

He “adopted a standing firing stance by resting his elbows on the roof of the Mazda” and took aim at the group, firing four shots in quick succession.

Repia and his friends scattered as the shots were fired, but he died at the scene from a single gunshot wound to the chest. One of the survivors was put in a medically induced coma and underwent multiple surgeries as a result of a bullet that punctured his nose and travelled into his neck, near his spine. Another was shot in the chin, and a third survivor was treated for a chest wound.

They were between the ages of 19 and 20.

‘My son deserved dignity’

In a series of emotional victim impact statements read aloud by prosecutors today, members of Repia’s family emphasised that he was more than just the person portrayed in the media based on the summary of facts.

“My son mattered,” Repia’s mum said. “He is my son and he deserved dignity and respect.”

She and several of Repia’s aunts described someone who was family-oriented, protective of his siblings and cousins and who was always respectful in their presence.

“He had a large and colourful life,” his mother said. “… He did everything at 100%.”

Aunts remembered a young man who was always willing to help with chores and “brought a warmth” to family gatherings. He had a “contagious, goofy laugh” and an ability to make his loved ones laugh for hours with his silly jokes.

In the months prior to his death, he had talked about wanting to change his path and had recently started attending church, one aunt pointed out.

“Whatever [the] agreement might have been, the result should never have been the loss of a life,” she said.

Another aunt emphasised: “Although it may seem to some in society he was a criminal or a bully, he was beyond what you might read.”

She expressed hope that Stanaway uses his time in prison to reflect on his actions and is eventually able to forgive himself. He took a life, but also destroyed his own, it was acknowledged.

‘Brutal and thoughtless’

Crown prosecutor Fiona Culliney acknowledged that the background between Repia and Stanaway was important for context. But that doesn’t take away from the fact it was a “brutal and thoughtless” shooting, she said.

“In no way does that background justify what Kayden Stanaway did,” she said.

There was an element of premeditation in having the gun at his side before the group arrived, she suggested.

But his young age at the time, combined with his guilty pleas and difficult background mitigated the sentence to the point where life imprisonment wasn’t called for, she said. She argued for an end sentence of between 15 and 17 years’ imprisonment.

Defence lawyer Jasper Rhodes said his client accepted, through his guilty pleas, that his actions that night were unacceptable and unjustified.

He pointed to a psychological report that found Stanaway was likely to have fired out of an incorrect threat assessment caused in part by “PTSD due to the ongoing threats to his family”.

“He was under the genuine belief that the other group had their own firearms and, in theory, were about to use them,” Rhodes said.

The defence sought an end sentence of 14 years.

In settling instead on 16 years, Justice Lang noted that the crime needed to be denounced given it wouldn’t be a life sentence.

He noted that Stanaway had been sentenced in April and again in July 2024 – just months before the shooting – for firearms-related charges.

The ongoing feud “contributed to the perception you were in mortal danger” but there was no evidence that was ever the case, he said.

A trio of thieves who lured a young drug dealer to a pre-dug grave for a mafia-style double-cross killing were handed substantial sentences today after a judge noted the unusual amount of callousness needed to carry out the plan.

“It was effectively an execution for monetary gain,” Justice Geoffrey Venning said, going on to describe the killing as “deliberate” and “in cold blood”.

Patched Head Hunters member Zak “Johnny Trigger” Kameta, 28, then-prospect Matthew Snaylam, 22, and 28-year-old construction company boss Hassan Al Fadhli, known to wear “Head Hunters supporter” regalia, were all found guilty of murder at the conclusion of their jury trial in November.

They returned to the High Court at Auckland today for sentencing.

Double-crossed
Nineteen-year-old victim Jayden Mamfredos vanished in April 2023. His body wouldn’t be found in a deep grave outside Al Fadhli’s home until the following year, amid a high-profile missing persons investigation.

The defence suggested during the trial that Mamfredos – armed and unpredictable due to his own meth consumption – had been fatally shot by a mysterious, unidentified Black Power member during a large-scale drug deal that went sour.

Kameta, a digger operator, did conceal the body out of panic but he wasn’t the killer, defence lawyer Ron Mansfield KC argued.

But jurors – and ultimately the judge – preferred the narrative suggested by Crown Solicitor Alysha McClintock, in which there never was a Black Power member.

Instead, the Crown suggested, Mamfredos was lured to the rural North Auckland property with the promise of an easy-money, fake-drug-deal robbery of the fictional Black Power member. He would have arrived, McClintock said, to instead find a pre-dug grave and to realise – too late – that he had been double-crossed by his acquaintances.

Mamfredos, operating under the direction of an imprisoned Bloods member with the street name Raw, unknowingly had a target on his back after obtaining 1kg of methamphetamine worth an estimated $80,000 to $100,000, prosecutors said.

All three defendants were in on the plan, the Crown argued, explaining that Snaylam served as the lookout while Kameta filled in the grave and Al Fadhli actively kept his family away from their home so there wouldn’t be witnesses. They had hatched the plan about 10 days earlier and had even dug a practice grave, it was alleged.

Each faced an automatic life sentence today. Justice Venning’s job was to determine the minimum period of imprisonment before each man can begin to apply for parole.

‘Calculated … planning’
Crown Solicitor Alysha McClintock argued that the judge should impose a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years for all three defendants because the murder involved “calculated or lengthy planning”.

“Jayden Mamfredos was set up and executed for commercial profit in a coordinated plan between these three defendants,” she said. “Significant thought and substantial planning went into this murder. There was nothing spontaneous about it. There was nothing amateur about it.

“The plan that they made worked for quite some time.”

Defence lawyer Annabel Ives argued that a minimum 17-year term would be manifestly unjust, based partly on her client’s age. As a school friend of the victim, he also was 19 at the time of the killing, she said, describing him as “easily led” and “relatively immature”.

He had spent too much time in a kickboxing gym, idolising gang members but has now “stepped back” from his previous associations, Ives said.

Kameta, meanwhile, continues to dispute the jury’s finding, his lawyer said, arguing that the 17-year minimum should not be imposed for his client either.

At 28, he is still a relatively young man, Mansfield said, describing him as a hard-working former business owner who is capable of contributing to society upon his eventual release.

“I ask that the court not see this man as irredeemable,” he said.

Lawyer Justin Harder, representing Al Fadhli, noted that his client wasn’t present during the actual killing so his sentence should reflect his lesser role.

Justice Venning, however, was unconvinced by all three arguments. He ordered an 18-year minimum sentence for Kameta and 17 years for Snaylam and Al Fadhli.

“I accept that both the planning and the callousness of your acts were exceptional in this case,” he explained.

And the callousness continued even after the killing, he said, describing how Snaylam pretended to be a concerned friend in the weeks that followed – deceiving Mamfredos’ mother as she pleaded for help locating her son.

‘Legacy of love’
Mamfredos’ mother said the “senseless, devastating act” was made much worse by the “crushing uncertainty” of the lengthy search for him.

“[It was] nine months of unanswered questions – nine months of living between hope and dread,” she said, describing him as “the heart beat of our home”.

“Without him, there is silence.”

Like all young people, he made mistakes, she said. But he did nothing to deserve what happened to him, she said.

Mamfredos’ mother said the defendants treated him “as if he was disposable … as if he didn’t belong to a family that loved him beyond words”.

She described her son as having left behind “a legacy of love, light and compassion”.

They were sentiments echoed by the victim’s grandmother and younger sister.

“He was our anchor,” Mamfredos’ sister said. “He was our protector, our confidant, our shield.”

She agreed the disappearance made the situation all the more painful, without an opportunity for closure.

“We had a nightmare for 270 days while the people who did this went on with their lives,” she said.

Justice Venning thanked the victim’s family for their statements and said he agreed with his mother that nothing Mamfredos did deserved what happened to him.

WARNING: This article discusses violence and may be upsetting to some readers.

Rita Tawhai believes her partner’s death could have been avoided if her son had been placed in a secure facility during his medication change.

“To lose the love of my life is heart‑breaking. To lose my son to a system that doesn’t work is devastating,” she told the court as her son was ordered to remain in a secure mental health facility indefinitely.

Geoffrey Ware was murdered by Jack Korewha, in a tragedy linked to failures across the mental health system, missed warning signs and poor risk management.

Korewha, 27, appeared in the High Court at Whangārei on Tuesday for his final hearing.

On May 9, 2025, only weeks into a change of medication for schizophrenia, Korewha was at his mother’s home she shared with Ware on Mangakāhia Rd in Parakao, Northland.

Ware, 55, was sitting in a lounge chair when Korewha plunged a bone-handled knife into his neck.

Korewha placed the bloodied knife on the bench and left, leaving Ware, who died at the scene from blood loss.

Korewha left in Ware’s car, and was found by police hours later walking along State Highway 14. He had no recollection of stabbing Ware.

He was taken into custody and charged with a minor offence but two weeks later was charged with murder.

For the next six months, the court case progressed through the High Court awaiting mental health reports, and Korewha was formally declared unfit to stand trial in December.

At his disposition hearing, Korewha appeared via audio-visual link from the Mason Centre wearing a hospital gown.

‘I’m angry at the system’
Ware’s partner and Korewha’s mother had her victim impact statement read.

It detailed the double loss Rita Tawhai felt and her frustration her son wasn’t placed in a secure facility while his medication was being changed.

“I had talked with the mental health team and was disappointed they didn’t help sooner,” she said.

“Poor decisions have caused the love of my life to be lost.”

She said since the incident she had been “left to deal with the brunt of it”.

“I am angry at the system, I have been put through the wringer and left to cope with it. I’ve had so-called family and friends blaming me for things I did not do.

“Some are cold-hearted and have no idea what’s going on. The system needs to change for the better of society or this will keep happening.”

‘Reports made for sad reading’
Justice Michele Wilkinson-Smith went into detail around Korewha’s troubled mental health history.

She cautioned Korewha that some of what she was about to read, he might be hearing for the first time, yet he sat through it without a flicker of emotion, staring straight ahead.

Justice Wilkinson-Smith first acknowledged the distress the families had experienced since Ware’s death and thanked them for their views.

Korewha had no history of violence until he was first admitted as an inpatient in a Northland mental health facility in 2021 when he was 21.

“The reports made for sad reading,” she said.

By March 2022 he was on medication for schizophrenia and released back into the community, but by June, he was back.

He absconded twice from the facility, transitioned to a new medication and was released again.

In March 2023, he was reported as doing well and his mental health community order was ceased.

In September 2024, his medication was reduced and then ceased completely, but by April 2025 he was put on a new medication.

“The death of Mr Ware then followed on May 9,” Justice Wilkinson-Smith said.

During that period he was assessed as having an intellectual disorder, but Justice Wilkinson‑Smith said that finding was incorrect as it was made after his schizophrenia diagnosis.

“He has an established history of psychosis which he’s previously been treated by anti-psychotics.

“Previous clinical notes give inconsistent and, at times, contradictory accounts of his poor performance.”

She said he did not meet the criteria for intellectual disability.

Justice Wilkinson-Smith said when Korewha was unwell he would exhibit persecutor delusions, auditory hallucinations, poverty of speech and cognitive impairment.

She said he also had a number of significant risk factors present at the time of Ware’s death.

Since being in the Mason clinic, Korewha “was observed responding to unseen stimuli when he was in his room which included laughing and talking to himself”, Justice Wilkinson-Smith said.

“He is unable to engage in future planning or engage in destabilising. He’s unable to engage in mediation, unable to describe how to manage stress. While it’s treatable, the effect is still not clear.

“His current inability to acknowledge the events relating to the killing of Mr Ware, or to describe his experience or his motivation, presents significant challenges to predict or modify his future risk.”

Justice Wilkinson-Smith said it was in the interests of the public and Korewha that he be detained in a secure mental health facility.

“Any lesser response would not adequately address the risk he has.”

Under the order, Korewha can only be discharged with the approval of the Minister of Health.

The man convicted of murdering Dunedin woman Sophie Elliott is up for parole after serving 18 years behind bars.

Clayton Weatherston, then a 33-year-old economics tutor at the University of Otago, stabbed his ex-partner, 22, more than 200 times on January 9, 2008.

He was sentenced to life in prison with a non-parole period of 18 years after being found guilty of her murder following a five-week trial in Christchurch in 2009.

Weatherston, now in his 50s, is eligible for parole at the end of the month and will go before the Parole Board for the first time.

Sophie’s father Gil Elliott told 1News it was a day he was dreading.

“It’s sort of affected me the whole way through, I suppose. You sort of almost count down, you sort of think to yourself ’15 years to go’, ’14 years to go’. It won’t have gone quickly for him, I imagine, but it’s certainly gone pretty quickly for us,” he said.

“He hasn’t had any rehabilitation apparently, and why would he because he doesn’t think he did anything wrong, because he thinks it was all Sophie’s fault.”

‘The whole room seemed to be red’
The gruesome attack took place in Sophie’s locked bedroom in her family home in Ravensbourne, just one day before she was set to relocate to Wellington to start a job with the Treasury.

Her mother, Lesley Elliott, had let Weatherston into their home after he showed up unannounced, claiming to have a farewell gift for her.

“She just started screaming and screaming and screaming,” Lesley said during the trial.

After eventually breaking in, she remembered “the whole room seemed to be red”.

During the trial, Weatherston took the stand in his own defence as he attempted to blame their daughter for his horrific crime. He laughed often under cross examination, telling the Crown prosecutor: “It’s drama. It’s Pride and Prejudice, you’ve seen it; she’s Mrs Bennett and I’m Mr Darcy. It’s Mills and Boon, man.”

But when he was asked about his systematic mutilation of her body after she was already dead, his reply was simply, “I don’t know”.

Weatherston – who had been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder by two psychiatrists appearing for the defence – claimed the extreme brutality was manslaughter, not murder, as he had been provoked by Sophie.

At the time of the trial, Weatherston’s use of the partial defence of provocation caused major public outcry. He claimed his tumultuous six-month relationship with Sophie sparked the killing and that she had attacked him first. The provocation defence was abolished in New Zealand just months later.

Outside court after Weatherston’s sentencing in September 2009, Gil said, “He never pleaded guilty and he’s never said sorry.”

A life denied
Gil has prepared a five-page submission opposing Weatherston’s release. He has also applied for a postponement order, meaning Weatherston’s next parole hearing could be between three and five years away if he is denied release this month.

He wants the Parole Board to understand the true dangers of a narcissistic personality.

“They don’t have any conscience, so they don’t have any empathy whatsoever because they only ever think about themselves. We don’t know what went on in his strange mind and I just hope the Parole Board know these sorts of people are unpredictable. If they let him out, then let it be on their heads.”

Gil hopes the man who took his daughter’s life will never regain his.

“Sophie could have been Secretary of the Treasury, I wouldn’t have been surprised at all. She may be married, might have had children. It’s all been denied for her; it’s been denied for our family as well.”

WARNING: This article discusses sexual assault and may be upsetting to some readers.

A man who violently abducted a jogger and took her to his home, where he sexually violated her, is believed to have unresolved issues with power, control and entitlement.

Today, Whangārei man Haydn Teoneroa Christy appeared before the Parole Board for the third time in nine months, during which it was determined he remained a risk to the community.

Christy, who had been deported from Australia for violent crimes, was sentenced in the High Court at Whangārei in 2016 on charges of abduction for the purpose of sexual violation, threatening to kill, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and four charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.

His victim had been living in Whangārei for a short time when, early one morning in 2016, she went for a run around the popular walking track, the Hātea Loop.

Christy, then 40, was intoxicated and high on methamphetamine when he saw the woman while driving.

He followed her before getting out of his car and approaching her.

Christy repeatedly punched the woman, wounded her with rocks and then abducted her, taking her in his car to his home, where he sexually violated her.

He played pornography on his television and continued the abuse before threatening to kill her.

After the assaults, he drove the woman to a city street and dumped her.

A member of the public found her and called emergency services. She spent days in hospital recovering from her injuries.

At the time of Christy’s sentencing, the Crown sought preventive detention but the sentencing judge did not impose it as Christy had no history of sexual assault.

He was instead sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of eight years.

Christy is now eligible for parole, and at a hearing in May 2025, the board declined his bid for release because the address he proposed to reside at was considered too remote.

A month later, while still incarcerated but living in a self-care unit on prison grounds, Christy tested positive for cannabis.

He was subsequently transferred back inside the wire.

Christy’s parole was again refused in July, and today he appeared before the board for another attempt at release.

At the hearing, he expressed remorse for his offending and, repeating what he had said at earlier hearings, told the board he was no longer the man he was when he committed the crime.

Christy said he had been angry at the world and unable to cope with his life at the time.

He had turned to drugs and alcohol and developed distorted beliefs about his entitlement to, and need for, sex, he said.

“I was using sex as a coping strategy to release stress,” Christy said.

“I’ve learnt a lot in that place with distortion, things going through my head, having my needs met, treating women in a bad way, and having entitlement issues.”

At his parole hearing in July, he presented a safety plan for his release.

Today, the board asked Christy whether he had updated the plan since he was caught smoking cannabis, to which he said he hadn’t.

He was then asked whether he had looked at his safety plan in the last seven months, and again, he hadn’t.

Christy faced pressure from the Parole Board around his former issues with power, control and entitlement.

Panel convener Ann-Marie Beveridge was not convinced he had overcome those issues and pressed him for answers over what happened on the morning of the abduction.

“How long had you been considering kidnapping a person off the street for your sexual purposes?” she asked.

Christy said it was impulsive and he had not been considering it at all.

She then asked why he chose his victim.

“I was intoxicated at the time. I don’t want to blame the drugs and intoxication, I can’t answer that,” he said.

Beveridge then asked why he thought he was entitled to do what he did to the victim, to which Christy said it stemmed from behaviour he saw in men growing up.

Beveridge did not accept his answer and said there were plenty of grown men who had lived similar lives that did not go on to abduct women from the streets.

“I believe I took the rights of that young lady away from her because I believed that the whole world was against me and someone had to suffer,” Christy said.

Beveridge then put to Christy that he was a “power and control” person and said she could not see anything in his safety plan that addressed how he would deal with those issues in the community.

Other board members also pressed Christy on how he would manage situations involving vulnerable women in the future, using an example of being the last person left with a woman at a party.

“First of all, I wouldn’t be in a situation at a party,” Christy responded.

“I’m not even thinking about that lifestyle or being in an environment like that but walking away if I was put in that situation, being assertive to that person and telling them I’m walking away from this.”

The Parole Board took around 20 minutes to deliberate before advising Christy that his parole was declined.

A number of concerns remained for the panel and they wanted to see an updated safety plan and more psychological support in place for him in the community.

Christy will return before the board in April.

Disgraced former Gloriavale leader and convicted sex offender Howard Temple has sparked outrage by attending a community market less than a month after he was sentenced to more than two years in prison.

The 85-year-old was then released on bail hours later pending an appeal.

His attendance at the Moana market today on the West Coast has “disgusted” members of the public, former Gloriavale members and families of his victims.

Last year Temple pleaded guilty to 12 charges of sex offending against six girls over a period of 20 years.

The charges spanned more than 20 years and were described by Judge Raoul Neave as “excruciating” for the victims.

On December 12, Judge Neave sentenced Temple to 26 months behind bars.

Within minutes of decision being handed down Temple’s lawyer Michael Vesty filed an appeal in the High Court.

A judge then granted his elderly client bail pending that appeal.

It is understood that his bail conditions stipulate that he is to live at a property owned by Gloriavale away from the main site.

Before his sentencing his conditions stated he could return to the grounds of the community to work at commercial business and attend worship meetings.

Temple was photographed around midday by a member of the public.

The woman said she is friends with a number of former Gloriavale members and was “appalled” to see Temple at the market.

“It is absolutely abhorrent – regardless of what his bail conditions are, the optics are absolutely terrible,” she said.

“It is utterly appalling – he was jailed for indecently assaulting young girls.

“It is very unlikely someone like that would offend in that situation, but the impact of seeing someone like him there would have on any of his victims or people who have left Gloriavale is huge.”

The woman said, in her opinion, Temple’s presence at the marked demonstrated he felt he could just do what he wanted. She said she felt “disgusted” by it.

The woman was alerted to Temple’s attendance by a friend who is related to one of the victims.

“My friend who is staying with me saw him and told me she went into panic mode seeing him,” the victim’s relative said.

The woman who took the photo approached a current member of Gloriavale and asked him what he thought about Temple attending the market.

“I said to him that Howard Temple was jailed for sexual offending and that the optics were terrible … he said ‘no he wasn’t’,” she said.

“I said that he was jailed and then released on bail and was currently a convicted offender. He said ‘but he didn’t indecently assault people … there’s what the court says, and then there’s the truth’.

“I said, ‘okay, well, we’re not going to agree on that, buddy’. I told him that he can believe what he wants, but at the end of the day, having Temple there makes people really uncomfortable.

“The police said he’s allowed to be there if he had an adult supervisor – but still.”

A spokesperson said police would not comment on the situation.

The Herald has reached out to Temple’s lawyer.

An officer was hit by a bottle after police attempted to break up an unruly crowd of about 1000 youths in Whangamatā last night.

Eight youths were arrested after fireworks were fired at people and officers were physically obstructed as they tried to intervene.

Eastern Waikato Area Commander, Inspector Mike Henwood, said at about 10.30pm officers were called to Williamson Park in the Coromandel Peninsula town.

As police attempted to disperse the crowd, bottles were lobbed at the officers. One officer was hit, but was not injured.

Fireworks were also being fired into the crowd of people.

Henwood said repeated instructions given over a loudhailer to leave the park were ignored by those gathered, forcing officers to intervene and move the crowd on.

In nearby Pāuanui, police encountered another large group of about 300 youth near the Surf Club Reserve.

While officers were arresting a person for lighting fireworks in a dangerous manner, a number of those present became physically obstructive, further escalating the situation.

Seven youths were arrested in Whangamatā and one in Pāuanui.

Henwood said after relatively quiet New Year’s celebrations, this behaviour was disappointing.

“Not only does this behaviour put my team at risk – it also puts other attending youth at risk.

“New Year’s Eve heading into New Year’s morning was particularly uneventful, with most people celebrating the New Year in a safe and orderly manner.

“It is disappointing that after a good night, it is then ruined by intoxicated youth in denial that New Year’s is over.”

Henwood said police continue to urge anyone who witnesses antisocial or dangerous behaviour of any kind to make a report of the incident immediately by calling 111.

“It’s great that people want to come and enjoy our Coromandel beaches over the summer period, and we encourage everyone to celebrate the New Year – but it needs to be done in a safe and respectful manner,” Henwood said.