Gary Patrick Brown
Last updated 15:18, June 17 2015 >>>
A man who pulled an air pistol on a patron of a Nelson bar has been banned from every pub "between Nelson and Takaka".
Gary Patrick Brown, 52, was sentenced in the Nelson District Court on Wednesday for possessing an offensive weapon, procuring or possessing a cannabis plant, unlawfully possessing a pistol or restricted weapon and presenting a firearm at a person.
He was arrested after pulling an air-powered pistol on another man and pushing the barrel into his stomach at a Bridge St bar on May 14.
Brown was displaying a Mongrel Mob-type patch on his clothing and the man had told him he should not be wearing gang regalia in Nelson.
He asked the victim if he had a problem with it, to which the victim told him again that he should not be wearing the patch.
Brown held the pistol to him for about five seconds before putting it away.
A staff member who witnessed the incident then called the police.
Police found a tomahawk, tyre iron and about 6 grams of cannabis plant material along with the pistol on Brown when they searched him.
In court, defence lawyer Kelly Hennessy said the owners of "every licensed bar between Nelson and Takaka" had signed trespass notices, banning Brown from their premises for two years.
Judge Peter Butler sentenced Brown to three months' home detention.
He was also ordered him to attend an alcohol and drug assessment, not possess or use alcohol or non-prescription drugs and attend a meeting with a psychologist.
For the court of Appeal, Justice Somers said in a judgment delivered by him as follow:
On 14 October 1987, after being found guilty by a jury, Gary Patrick Brown was sentenced to concurrent terms of 10 years imprisonment for sexual violation by rape, 10 years imprisonment for abduction, 8 years imprisonment for sexual violation by unlawful connection, and 4 years imprisonment for threatening to kill. He now applies for leave to appeal against those sentences on the grounds set out in his notice which may be summarised as being first, that the sentences are excessive, secondly, that they are disparate with those imposed on his co-offender, and, thirdly, that but for the constraint of his counsel he would have pleaded guilty after the taking of depositions and thereby earned some credit.
The complainant was a 21 year old student. On leaving her place of work at about 11.15 pm on 25 May 1987 to go to her home she was set upon by Brown and taken to and carried away in a car driven by a youth called Powell. She resisted vigorously and Brown produced a knife which she tried to take off him suffering cuts to her hand. Brown threatened to kill her, and, either at this time or later, she was stabbed in the thigh. What then happened can be briefly stated. At various times she was blindfolded and her hands tied, each attempted to rape her, one at least eventually succeeded. Each required her to commit oral indecencies on him. The two eventually discussed the disposal of the complainant suggesting in her hearing that she might be thrown into the Waikato or the car set on fire with her in it. In the end, after several hours captivity, she escaped and the evidence of her condition at that time is a graphic portrayal of the suffering and indignities to which she was subjected.
Before turning to the grounds of appeal it is necessary to say something about Brown. He is aged 24 years and is married. He has a lengthy list of criminal offending including a number of charges of assault and unlawful damage and the like. According to the pre-sentence report he spent only one year out of prison during the period between 1980 and 1986.
It is submitted that the sentences were excessive. We are quite unable to agree. This is a very bad case indeed. The Judge, on sentence, rightly said that Brown and Powell set out to snatch a woman off the street and have their way with her and that of course is what they did. Mr Turkington has referred us to some of the recent cases on sentences for this class of offending and we need say no more than that those imposed in the present case were within the range available to the Judge in the circumstances.
Then it is said by the applicant that the sentences were materially more severe than those imposed on co-offender Powell. Mr Turkington has rightly conceded that he cannot support that submission but we should say something about it. Powell was sentenced to 7 years for rape and abduction but his circumstances and his attitude to the charges were entirely different. He was only 16 years of age at the time of the offending and had not previously been before the Court. He was remorseful and pleaded guilty. The Judge, rightly in our view, considered that Brown, so much older and so much more versed in crime, was the ringleader and his involvement, including the initial attack on the girl, the use of the knife and the threat to kill, were more serious. Those features fully warranted the different sentences imposed.
Finally, there is the suggestion by Brown that he was, in effect, prevented by counsel from entering the plea of guilty. We need not pursue this point for Mr Turkington has told us that he has fully canvassed the matter with Brown who accepts that by the time of the trial he had elected to continue with his plea of not guilty notwithstanding the attitude he said he had entertained after depositions were taken.
Leave to appeal is refused.
Jessiye Gabriel Brown
Date of Birth
19 October 1962
Sentenced to ten years in October 1987
Sentenced to four years eight months in mid 2009
Additional Photos & Files
Associated Media Links Man handed district-wide bar ban for pulling gun on patron
OFFENCES / CONVICTIONS
|Event Date||Event||Court Location||Offence Type||Offence Date||Committed While||Sentence Imposed|