A Christchurch man who was violently attacked in a homophobic assault says he feels insulted that the teenager deemed the “most culpable” in a coordinated series of gay-bashing attacks sought a reduced sentence.
Kelly Hopkins was targeted in April 2023 after being lured to a park in Avonhead through the dating app Grindr. Believing he was meeting another man late at night, Hopkins instead encountered a group of teenagers who attacked him in the dark.
He was kicked and punched as he lay on the ground, before one of the attackers struck him in the head with a rock. Six weeks later, police contacted Hopkins to identify footage of the assault, revealing to him that the attack had been filmed.
“I was horrified,” Hopkins said previously.
Police later uncovered at least nine similar incidents, where gay and bisexual men were targeted through Grindr using the same tactic. Five teenagers were charged and sentenced by the same Youth Court judge in February last year.
A sixth teenager — identified by police as the “most culpable” offender — was sentenced separately by a different judge. Despite having already completed community service, he was discharged with no further penalty.
Police appealed that outcome to the High Court, arguing the sentence was inadequate. The High Court agreed, overturning the discharge and ordering that a notation of the offending be placed on the teen’s Ministry of Justice record.
The youth then sought leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal. In a recently released judgment, which NZME was granted permission to report, the Court of Appeal declined the application — leaving the High Court ruling in place.
Hopkins told NZME it was offensive that the youth had attempted to appeal what he already considered a lenient outcome.
“If I were his parents, I’d want him to have the full culpability,” he said.
During the attack, Hopkins’ glasses were broken, and he suffered abrasions to his elbows and knees, bruised ribs, and a gash to his head. He has previously said that even now, the sound of footsteps behind him can trigger fear.
Hopkins said he felt vindicated that police pushed for consistency in sentencing and sought to have some of the cases heard in the District Court.
“It feels to me the victims got lost in all of this,” he said.
A Different Sentence
According to the agreed summary of facts, the sixth youth was 15 at the time of the offence. The group used Grindr to contact their victims, engaging in sexualised conversations and exchanging photos before arranging to meet in public places.
Victims were then outnumbered and assaulted, with violence including punching, kicking and stomping — sometimes to the head — leaving some unconscious. Several victims suffered fractures, some required surgery, and some attacks were filmed and shared on social media.
No single youth took part in all 10 attacks, but the teen at the centre of this appeal participated in eight of them.
The Court found the most serious attack occurred on April 15, 2023, when a victim was chased, punched, kicked and stomped on the head, losing consciousness while being taunted and verbally abused. That assault was recorded and shared online.
Eventually, six youths aged between 14 and 16 were charged with offences including injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, aggravated robbery and possession of objectionable material.
The sixth youth admitted 11 charges, including three counts of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, three of aggravated robbery, three of assault with intent to rob, intentional damage, and possession of an objectionable publication.
Five of the youths were sentenced together in Youth Court. Two — involved in eight of the attacks — received six months’ supervision and 150 hours of community work under “group 4 responses” of the Oranga Tamariki Act. Three others involved in fewer assaults were discharged after informal plans involving community work and reparation.
The sixth youth, sentenced separately, was discharged after the judge found he was a follower rather than a leader, had strong parental support, and had taken positive steps since offending, including psychological assessment and community work.
On appeal, High Court Justice Lisa Preston ruled that the decision created an unjustifiable disparity.
She found the youth was “no less culpable” than his peers and described the outcome as “grossly and unjustifiably disparate”. The discharge was quashed and replaced with an order that a notation remain on his record.
‘Premeditated Actions and Significant Violence’
In seeking leave to appeal, the youth’s lawyer argued it would be a miscarriage of justice not to allow the appeal and stressed the Youth Court’s obligation to prioritise a young person’s best interests.
However, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s reasoning, finding sentencing parity was essential given the seriousness of the offending.
“… this was serious offending involving premeditated actions and significant violence, taking place over a series of events involving different victims,” the judges said.
They noted the offending could easily have been transferred to the District Court, where imprisonment may have been considered. While acknowledging that a notation would likely have negative consequences for the youth, the court said those impacts were not disproportionate given the harm caused to victims.
The application for leave to appeal was declined.
