Key Takeaways
- On 25 December 2024, Brown fired ten shots from a .22 LR Ruger semi‑automatic at a Black Power gang member in Naenae, Lower Hutt, while children were nearby.
- The shooting was motivated by a personal vendetta linked to the death of Brown’s brother, Albert Enoka, on 10 December 2024.
- Brown pleaded guilty; his lawyer highlighted a traumatic upbringing, lifelong methamphetamine addiction, ADHD, and prior incarceration as mitigating factors.
- The Crown argued rehabilitation prospects were “remote” and sought a Firearms Prohibition Order, which the defence did not contest.
- Judge Bruce Davidson sentenced Brown to three years’ imprisonment for doing a dangerous act with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, to run concurrently with an existing firearms sentence.
- The judge acknowledged a causal link between Brown’s offending and his appalling upbringing but noted limited rehabilitative potential.
- The case was reported by Open Justice journalist Catherine Hutton, based in Wellington.
Background and Motivation
The offending occurred against a backdrop of personal tragedy and gang rivalry. Brown’s brother, Albert Enoka, had been killed on 10 December 2024, an incident allegedly involving a member of the Black Power gang. Seeking retribution, Brown targeted the brother of the man suspected in Enoka’s death. This personal vendetta framed the shooting not as a random act of violence but as a retaliatory strike rooted in familial loss and gang-related grievance.
The Day of the Shooting
On 25 December 2024—a clear day during the school holidays when members of the public were out visiting family—Brown and an unidentified associate drove to a Naenae address in a white Holden Commodore. Children were present at the residence, heightening the public safety concerns associated with the offence. Brown concealed his face with a bandana and kept a .22 LR Ruger semi‑automatic firearm beside him in the backseat.
Approach and Verbal Exchange
As they neared the target’s house, Brown asked his associate whether the intended victims were still on the road. The associate confirmed their presence, noting they were “right there… looking at us.” This exchange shows Brown’s intent to confront the victims directly and his willingness to act despite the presence of bystanders.
Execution of the Shooting
Brown sat up, peered at the state house, then ducked down again before aiming the firearm out the back passenger‑side window. He fired two shots as the vehicle approached the victim’s address. Upon passing the house, he sat up again and discharged a further six shots through the open window at the victim. After turning the car, he fired two additional shots at the man and his dwelling. In total, Brown discharged ten rounds in quick succession.
Immediate Aftermath
Spent cartridge cases were ejected into the vehicle. The firearm eventually jammed, preventing Brown from continuing the barrage. He celebrated the assault with gang sign gestures and a primal roar as they drove away. The brazen nature of the attack—occurring in a residential area during daylight, with children nearby—underscored its seriousness.
Arrest and Evidence
Two days later, police executed a search warrant at the premises where Brown was staying. Inside a wardrobe in the bedroom, they located the same .22 LR Ruger semi‑automatic firearm used in the shooting. The discovery of the weapon linked Brown directly to the offence and provided tangible evidence for the prosecution.
Defence Presentation in Court
At his appearance in the Wellington District Court via audio‑visual link from Auckland Prison, Brown’s lawyer, Steve Gill, emphasized his client’s dire personal history. Gill described Brown as an addict who had smoked methamphetamine since age 15, suffered from ADHD and related mental‑health disorders, and had experienced an appalling upbringing. He also noted Brown’s recent two‑year sentence for assaulting a fellow prisoner, underscoring a pattern of institutional behaviour.
Prosecution Stance
Crown prosecutor Morgan Gavey acknowledged Brown’s long‑standing drug use but argued that it should not earn him any sentencing credit. She characterised his prospects of rehabilitation as “remote” and urged the court to impose a Firearms Prohibition Order—a measure Gill did not oppose. The Crown’s position reflected concerns about Brown’s continued risk to public safety.
Sentencing Considerations
Judge Bruce Davidson told Brown that the central issue was determining what additional credits, beyond the 25 % granted for his guilty plea, should apply. Although no updated pre‑sentence report existed, the judge relied on earlier sentencing materials. He accepted that prior judgments had afforded Brown substantial discounts due to his personal circumstances, and that some of those factors remained relevant despite the age of the reports.
Judicial Findings and Sentence
The judge concluded there was a clear causal link between Brown’s offending and his traumatic upbringing. Nevertheless, he weighed this against the gravity of the act and the limited likelihood of rehabilitation. On the charge of doing a dangerous act with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, Brown was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. This term was ordered to run concurrently with an existing sentence for a firearms offence, resulting in a cumulative period that reflected both the seriousness of the shooting and Brown’s prior criminal history.
Broader Context and Reporting
The case was covered by Catherine Hutton, an Open Justice reporter based in Wellington, who has previously contributed to the Waikato Times, RNZ, and served as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice. Her report highlighted the intersection of gang violence, substance abuse, and systemic failures that often underlie such tragic incidents.
Conclusion
The shooting of a Black Power gang member in Naenae on Christmas Day 2024 exemplifies how personal trauma, addiction, and gang affiliations can converge to produce extreme violence. While the court recognised Brown’s troubled background as a mitigating factor, it ultimately deemed the risk he posed to the community sufficient to warrant a substantial custodial term, accompanied by a firearms prohibition. The case serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by the justice system in balancing rehabilitation with public protection when dealing with offenders entrenched in cycles of substance abuse and criminal behaviour.