Lawyer argues shooting during home invasion ‘normal’
"WHEN you shoot someone just to make a point, isn't that pretty violent and unusual?"
This is the question a judge put to Leslie David Gadd's barrister, who had argued his client's conviction for shooting a man while invading his home did not warrant a serious violence offence declaration.
Gadd was jailed last year after he pleaded guilty to a string of offences, including wounding with intent and armed robbery in company.
Gadd shot Jason Enrique Gravestien in the leg while robbing his Little Mountain home of drugs and cash with another offender in April, 2011.
Gadd was sentenced to eight years in jail and was given an SVO declaration.
The declaration meant Gadd would have to serve 80% of his sentence.
He has appealed his sentence and argued the SVO was not suitable.
Defence barrister Simone Bain told the Court of Appeal yesterday she also had concerns whether the trial judge appreciated the difference between grievous bodily harm with intent and the lesser charge of wounding with intent to maim.
The Crown, during Gadd's trial, compared his case to others that involved innocent families and gang attack victims, Ms Bain said.
But a Court of Appeal Justice challenged Ms Bain on whether Gadd's shooting was serious and unusual.
"Yes it is ... but my complaint is directed at the fact it's a case and circumstance where there is nothing outstanding or beyond the normal," she replied.
Crown prosecutor Philip McCarthy argued otherwise.
"It was open for the trial judge to conclude the degree of aggravation in this case was significantly outside the normal to warrant a SVO," he said.
"It was a constitution of factors in this case that justified that conclusion."
The Court of Appeal reserved its decision.