The defendant — who was granted permanent name suppression at his High Court sentencing in July — appeared before the Court of Appeal yesterday, where his counsel, Anne Stevens KC, said his sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment was too harsh.
The teen was convicted of the manslaughter of 16-year-old Trinity Catholic College pupil Enere McLaren-Taana following a jury trial in March.
Mrs Stevens argued her client should not have been convicted, highlighting the consequence of deportation.
Alternatively, if he was convicted, she argued the sentence should have been home detention.
She said in sentencing the boy, Justice Robert Osborne did not agree he was acting in excessive self-defence.
Crown counsel Peter Marshall said the original sentence imposed was appropriate.
Justice Osborne considered the defendant’s personal circumstances, including age and background, and gave appropriate weight to those matters, he said
Pivotal to the case was a slew of CCTV footage which showed the defendant disembarking a bus, planning to visit a friend.
But on his walk to another bus stop, he encountered Enere.
Jurors heard the victim made a derogatory comment about the defendant’s clothing, which resulted in the younger boy retracing his steps.
Enere met him on the pavement at the busy Dunedin bus hub and the video showed the defendant withdraw a 31cm kitchen knife from his shoulder bag.
As the victim back-pedalled into the middle of Great King St, the knife-wielding teenager followed. A kick from Enere preceded the boy swinging "wildly", missing with one blow then striking with the second.
The blade penetrated a major vein and the victim later died in hospital.
At trial, Mrs Stevens argued her client was struggling at the time with PTSD symptoms after being the victim of a violent robbery nine months earlier.
She said his actions, while extreme, constituted self-defence against the threat of violence as the teen perceived it.
The jury rejected that explanation and Justice Osborne, at sentencing, described it as "grave offending".
Mrs Stevens told the court such a mark on her client’s criminal record would make him, and other family members in New Zealand, liable for deportation.
Such a consequence, she suggested, was out of all proportion to the seriousness of the crime.
However, Justice Osborne rejected an application for a discharge without conviction.
Yesterday Mrs Stevens said the defendant’s age and past trauma caused him to act impulsively because he felt Enere was a threat.
"The judge failed to view the matter through the lens of the appellant, a child," she said.
"Justice Osborne found that [the defendant] was the aggressor at sentencing, and there was no evidence to that effect."
The decision to stab Enere was one made under pressure and in an overwhelming situation, she said, which a psychiatrist described as an "impulsive and fear-driven response by a psychologically vulnerable adolescent".
"Taking in his background, his age, the speed, the threat, in my submission he never becomes the aggressor, he’s always trying to defend himself. He’s made the decision of a 13-year-old who’s been traumatised," Mrs Stevens said.
Mr Marshall, though, said Justice Osborne was entitled to find the defendant had been the aggressor after hearing all the evidence at trial.
He highlighted that at sentencing the defendant was allowed significant discounts for his personal circumstances and youth.
He said the consequence of deportation was one that naturally flowed from the serious crime and noted the defendant had already been put on notice that previous run-ins with the police could lead to him being deported.
The panel of judges reserved their decision.
