A woman had her head stomped and was brutally beaten by a group evicting her from a house following a falling-out over cats (not the ones pictured here).
When Sheryl Louden came across a “homeless and crying” woman on the street, she invited her to stay at her home.
But Louden did not bank on the woman bringing her cats with her, and as tensions escalated between the two over the felines, Louden told her guest to leave.
What happened next resulted in a brutal eviction of the woman, in which she was beaten and her head was stomped by Louden’s friends, one of whom was armed with a gun.
Today, the New Plymouth District Court heard that Louden did not partake in the violence but, as described by Judge Turitea Bolstad, she had instigated it.
The victim stayed with Louden at her Ōpunake home in South Taranaki for about two weeks until June 13 last year, when the two began arguing.
Louden asked the woman to leave, but the woman said she would leave the following morning.
“You, disgruntled about that advice, then left your property and, in short, enlisted others to eject your victim from your address,” Judge Turitea Bolstad told Louden, referring to the summary of facts.
At 2.30am, three women, including one who was armed with a gun, turned up at Louden’s property and beat the victim.
Louden was not there when the assault occurred, but she was aware her friends were there to evict the woman, and of the prospect of violence, the court heard.
The victim was dragged out of the property, punched in the head numerous times, and her head was stomped on.
She was subjected to abuse by Louden’s three co-accused, was threatened she would be killed, and a gun was “presented” at her.
Before the victim left the property, she was given a phone by one of her attackers, as it was believed the phone belonged to her.
However, the victim’s daughter later received messages from one of the co-accused demanding the phone be returned.
They negotiated with the daughter that the phone would be returned in exchange for the victim’s cats, which were still at Louden’s house.
The daughter was told that if the phone was not given back, the cats would be shot.
She went to Louden’s to return it but when she handed it over, one of the co-accused tried to close the door before handing over the cats, which were in a cage.
The daughter tried to hold the door open and reached for the cats, but she was shoved backwards.
She then went to leave but the co-accused followed her, before going back inside.
At that point, Louden came out with the cats to give to the daughter.
However, the co-accused returned outside and intervened, demanding that the daughter hand over her car keys in exchange for the cats.
The co-accused was brandishing a rifle, made further threats, and then fired a shot at the victim’s daughter’s feet.
She was terrified but managed to escape the property unharmed.
Judge Bolstad said Louden told a presentence report writer that she had met the victim on the street, the victim was homeless and crying, and “out of the kindness of her heart” Louden invited her to stay at her home.
“In doing so, you didn’t expect that she would bring cats and this caused friction between you and her,” the judge said, referring to the report.
As a result of the cats, and a claim that the victim was using drugs at her home, Louden asked her to leave.
The report writer said it was evident Louden disliked the victim.
Through a victim impact statement, read by Crown prosecutor Curtis Fatiaki, the victim said the violence had affected her to the core, “like termites in wood”.
She said she has had seizures as a result, having suffered a concussion, and struggles with breathing through her nose.
The victim said she felt angry and frustrated all the time, struggled with sleep, experienced panic attacks, and has had to relocate “for her safety”.
“To come in a pack and gang up on one is weak and a sign of society. It is shameful that someone is capable of that. You can’t trust anyone.”
The victim said the offending has also had a huge effect on her daughter, and their relationship.
In his submissions, Fatiaki accepted Louden’s culpability was less than that of her co-accused but said her involvement should not be understated.
Although Louden was not directly involved in the violence, she would have had knowledge that it might ensue when she enlisted the help of her friends to evict the victim, he submitted.
Defence lawyer Nathan Bourke said Louden, who was visibly upset while in the dock, deeply regretted what had happened.
She has no criminal history, except for a minor traffic matter two decades ago, and the incident was completely out of character for her, Bourke submitted.
“She does take it seriously, she does acknowledge where things went wrong, and you won’t see her [in court] again,” he told the judge.
Judge Bolstad said Louden could be clearly identified as the instigator.
“But for her actions, this could all have been avoided. And what I mean by that, is that it is her that has sought the assistance of others.”
Louden spoke to the judge, claiming a “lack of knowledge” and that she had been afraid of the woman.
However, she accepted there was no excuse for what happened.
“I didn’t mean for her to get hurt like that.”
Judge Bolstad stressed that Louden should have involved the police.
“It’s an illustration of how things can go seriously wrong. Because if there was any real concern, never mind your mates, you should have gone straight to the police.”
Judge Bolstad took issue with the premeditation involved, the number of people involved in the attack, and the harm caused to the victim.
She took into account Louden’s guilty plea to the charge of being a party to injuring with intent to injure, her remorse and her personal circumstances, before landing on an end sentence of nine months’ imprisonment.
Due to Louden being a first-time offender and the judge believing she was genuinely remorseful, her sentence was converted to four months and two weeks of community detention, and six months of supervision.
Two of Louden’s co-accused have pleaded guilty to the attack and will be sentenced at a later date. The third intends to defend her charge at trial.
Tara Shaskey is an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She joined NZME in 2022 and has worked as a journalist since 2014.