Key Takeaways
- In 2025, neighbour‑dispute escalated when Sutherland pointed a loaded pump‑action shotgun at Robson, threatened him with a pipe‑bomb, and was later convicted of unlawfully presenting a firearm.
- Judge Gene Tomlinson found Sutherland’s denials of holding and racking the shotgun to be lies, imposing a $1,500 fine and ordering forfeiture of his firearms collection.
- Sutherland appealed the conviction and licence revocation; the High Court upheld the conviction, and the District Court (Judge Philip Rzepecky) rejected his licence appeal, deeming him unfit to possess firearms.
- Evidence showed a pattern of hostile behaviour: a 2017 rifle incident, multiple neighbour complaints, speeding offences, and derogatory remarks about neighbours.
- Sutherland’s affidavits contained irrational denials and personal attacks on judges and police, which Judge Rzepecky interpreted as indicative of instability and a disrespectful attitude toward authority.
- The courts concluded that Sutherland is not a “fit and proper person” to hold a firearms licence under the Arms Act, resulting in the dismissal of his appeals and the revocation of his licence.
Incident Overview and Initial Confrontation
In late 2025, a neighbour dispute between Sutherland and Robson reached a dangerous climax. After Robson exited his vehicle, Sutherland shouted from his kitchen window, “You are trespassing, f*** off,” then retrieved a black pump‑action shotgun, held it at a 45‑degree angle downward, and racked the slide while staring directly at Robson. As Robson retreated, Sutherland warned, “There’s a device in the pipe and I hope it goes off when you’re sitting on the toilet.” The threatening display prompted Robson to call police, leading to Sutherland’s arrest and charge of unlawfully presenting a firearm.
Trial Findings and Conviction
The case proceeded to a judge‑alone trial before Judge Gene Tomlinson in late 2025. Tomlinson examined Sutherland’s testimony, in which he denied ever possessing the shotgun or operating its pump action. The judge concluded these denials were deliberate falsehoods, stating, “I am satisfied that his denials … were a lie … and he knew he was lying to me.” Consequently, Sutherland was found guilty, fined $1,500, and ordered to forfeit his entire firearms collection. The judgment emphasized that the conduct posed a clear threat to public safety and warranted both punishment and removal of weapons.
Appeal to the High Court
Sutherland appealed the conviction to the High Court, arguing procedural errors and insufficient evidence. The High Court reviewed the trial record, upheld Judge Tomlinson’s findings, and dismissed the appeal. The appellate judges affirmed that the lower court’s assessment of credibility was sound and that the conviction rested on solid evidence of unlawful firearm presentation.
Licence Revocation Proceedings
Parallel to the criminal appeal, Sutherland challenged the revocation of his firearms licence. The matter was heard before Judge Philip Rzepecky in the District Court in February 2026. Sutherland filed two affidavits maintaining he never picked up a gun and attacking the integrity of the investigating officer and Judge Tomlinson. In his affidavits he claimed, “Tomlinson has possibly been directed by others without due process … Hearsay from demented neighbours is the most likely explanation … but Tomlinson has a ADHD diagnosis. It seems very odd he should be in a position to hear cases,” reflecting a pattern of personal attacks rather than substantive legal argument.
Pattern of Prior Misconduct
The court considered Sutherland’s broader history. In 2017, neighbours reported that he had presented a rifle at them in an intimidating manner, prompting a notice of consideration for licence revocation—though police opted not to act at that time. Additional complaints from other neighbours cited repeated concerns about his firearm use. Police also introduced evidence of six speeding infringements and a conviction for driving 132 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, indicating a disregard for legal limits. Sutherland’s disparaging remarks about the 2017 complainants—calling them “two effeminate city boys who live across the valley with their poodles”—and his claim that the poodles caused a cow to fall down a bank further illustrated a hostile, antagonistic attitude toward neighbours.
Judicial Assessment of Fitness
Judge Rzepecky scrutinized Sutherland’s affidavits and noted a “degree of outrage” and irrational denial of facts that contradicted his narrative. When confronted about his second affidavit’s content, Sutherland initially denied having written those statements, which the judge labeled “plainly wrong.” This behavior suggested a willingness to reject inconvenient truths, indicating instability. Rzepecky observed that Sutherland displayed a “genuinely disrespectful attitude towards the police and others in authority,” responding with superiority and entitlement whenever challenged. Concluding that Sutherland failed the statutory “fit and proper person” test, the judge affirmed the licence revocation.
Outcome and Implications
Both the High Court and District Court dismissed Sutherland’s appeals. His criminal conviction stood, his firearms were forfeited, and his licence to possess firearms was revoked. The rulings underscore the judiciary’s stance that repeated threats, deceitful testimony, and a pattern of antagonistic conduct disqualify an individual from holding firearms, regardless of isolated claims of innocence. The case serves as a reminder that licensing authorities consider not only isolated incidents but also the overall character and respect for law demonstrated by applicants.
Shannon Pitman, a Whangārei‑based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the Te Tai Tokerau region, authored the original report. She is of Ngāpuhi/Ngāti Pūkenga descent, has five years of digital‑media experience, and joined NZME in 2023.