The pair were acquitted of multiple charges including wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm or maiming with intent after chopping the tip of the boy’s finger off, in a bid for him to release the knife he was lying on.
Burr was back in the High Court at Hamilton this morning for sentencing on three charges; unlawful possession of a firearm without a licence, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of explosives - the ammunition for the shotgun.
Burr was charged a second time after police went to his house after the home invasion and discovered a loaded firearm leaning against a writing desk in his lounge, along with a box of ammunition.
Burr’s counsel, Philip Morgan KC, said the shotgun used in the home invasion was handed down to him from his father about 50 years ago and he’d just never got around to getting a licence for it.
The second firearm was bought for him by concerned family after rumours began circulating in his small hometown of Piopio that associates of the teen boy were going to seek revenge,
Crown prosecutor Kaleb Whyte said a loaded firearm should never be left unsecured in a house, given the propensity for them to get into the wrong hands and pose a danger to members of the community.
He should also have gained a licence for the weapon over the decades he had owned it.
Whyte said a message of deterrence and denunciation needed to be sent to others and suggested a sentence of home detention would be appropriate, more so after the second shotgun was found just a week after the incident.
“If not home detention, it would need to be quite a high quantum of hours of community work met with a significant fine.”
A pre-sentence report assessed Burr at a low risk of reoffending but also lacking remorse and a sense of entitlement over what happened.
Morgan urged Justice Kiri Tahana to focus on the criminality of the circumstances relating to the most serious charge which had a maximum sentence of four years’ prison.
He said, apart from a drink driving charge, his client had no other convictions and was a contributing member of society and his local community.
Despite on the night of the home invasion being faced with the teen threatening him and his girlfriend hitting him over the head with the wine bottle, being outsized, outnumbered and the boy still holding a knife, he never pulled the trigger on the gun.
“It was a shotgun gifted to him by his father ... He’s now 67. At the time, I’m not even sure the firearm needed to be licensed at the time under the Arms Act.
“It’s simply been in the house and it’s not at all different, to a tool of the trade if you like, although I appreciate firearms are different ... but for a man like this defendant who lives in a remote area on his own, you’ve simply got to have a firearm of some sort.”
Given the circumstances, Morgan said his client could be dealt with by a hefty fine.
But Justice Tahana said she had to take into account other similar cases which all had a starting point of imprisonment.
Being in possession of a second gun a week later was also an aggravating feature, so she took a combined start point of 20 months’ jail before giving him a 25 per cent discount for his early guilty plea.
But she noted the closet where it was stored was never locked or secured from children and he never made an effort to get a licence.
She agreed there was no need for jail or home detention but said it was serious enough to warrant the maximum community work sentence of 400 hours coupled with six months’ community detention.
Although the firearm was sentimental, she said it was kept insecure and loaded and ordered the forfeiture of both firearms and ammunition.
