"It was very clear on sentence his Honour held Mr Tawha responsible alone for 49 fish, which was clearly not the case in the defended hearing judgment. It was clear others were involved," she said.
Ms Dorset said the amount of media attention around the case contributed to public humiliation to a disproportionate level when combined with the penalty imposed.
She said his case was on television and he was the subject of talkback radio. During sentencing Mr Tawha's previous convictions were heard, Ms Dorset said.
"Mr Tawha was unnecessarily portrayed as a real villain. In sentencing, the judge made reference to him as a very violent person ... it was completely irrelevant to poaching."
Ms Dorset said she was also concerned by the judge's emphasis on the jurisdiction issue.
Tawha initially refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the court stating he was a "sovereign being".
"He retracted from that position and committed to the district court way before sentencing," she said.
Crown prosecutor Chris Macklin opposed the appeal, saying the Crown had sought a sentence of 15 to 18 months' imprisonment.
A law change in October 2013 doubled the maximum penalties for poaching to two years imprisonment per charge, and/or a $100,000 fine per charge.
Mr Macklin said Tawha not only took trout but disturbed restricted spawning grounds.
"No one in this country is entitled to take trout from that stream any time of the year... This is clearly serious offending of this type. The message [from Parliament] has been delivered bluntly by the doubling of the sentence that this is serious offending."
Justice Moore reserved his decision.
