Judge-alone trial — presenting rifle without lawful or sufficient purpose — discharging firearm near dwellinghouse so as to frighten — level 4 lockdown — self-defence — "reasonable excuse" — warning shot — Arms Act 1983, ss 45, 48 & 52 — Crimes Act 1961, s 48 — Ashby v Police (1994) 12 CRNZ 114 — Dreadon v Police (1990) 6 CRNZ 481 — Attorney-General’s Reference (No.2 of 1983) [1984] 1 QB 456 — Gemmell v Police HC Christchurch, A 27/86, 26 March 1986 — Gray v R [2019] NZCA 207 — R v Young CA 266/85, 8 March 2006 — Stanbury v Police (1988) 3 CRNZ 253 — Afamasaga v R (2015) 27 CRNZ 640. The defendant faced two charges under the Arms Act - presenting a rifle without lawful or sufficient purpose, and discharging a firearm near a dwellinghouse so as to frighten. The charges arose from an incident that occurred during the Level 4 Covid-19 lockdown of 2020. The complainant in the matter was an animal control officer who was undertaking a pig-culling operation near the defendant's house. Although acting in an official capacity, the complainant was in an unmarked vehicle and wore civilian clothes. While shooting at pigs the complainant attracted the attention of the defendant, who came to the conclusion that the complainant was a poacher. The defendant got a gun from his house and fired a shot. The complainant said that the defendant had then pointed the gun towards him. The Court found that the evidence established that the defendant had fired the shot in the air, rather than in the direction of the complainant, and that he had not pointed the gun at the complainant. The charge of presenting a rifle was therefore dismissed. With regards the charge of discharging a firearm so as to frighten, the Court found that the complainant had been frightened when he heard the shot. Further, the defendant had no defence to the charge because the Court found that he had not fired the shot in self-defence, as he had known that only pigs were in danger from what the complainant was doing. In fact the defendant had been aware that the complainant was not even carrying a gun at the time that he fired the shot, so there was no "reasonable excuse" for firing the gun. The Court found that the charge of discharging a firearm so as to frighten was proven. Judgment Date: 14 May 2021 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *