John Aitken appealed against the jail term imposed for an attack which resulted in his victim losing the sight in his right eye - but was unsuccessful. Photo / File
John Aitken appealed against the jail term imposed for an attack which resulted in his victim losing the sight in his right eye - but was unsuccessful. Photo / File
John Aitken showed his victim no mercy and continued to rain down kicks and punches to the man’s head and body as he lay unconscious on the ground.
Aitken was convicted and sentenced to four years and nine months’ imprisonment in December 2021 for the vigilante beating he meted out in Mount Maunganui in February of the same year.
The victim suffered bruising to his head, blood in his lungs, several fractured ribs and was permanently disabled as a direct result of the attack after losing vision in his right eye.
He pleaded guilty to charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and threatening to kill on the morning his jury trial was due to begin, after Judge Christopher Harding declined to grant an adjournment.
Aitken initially sought to challenge his conviction and sentence in the Court of Appeal but later abandoned contesting the conviction and a hearing in September 2022 focused solely on his claim the jail term imposed was excessive.
He had attacked his victim, who he believed had assaulted his son a few days earlier, as he was sitting on a bench outside a shop.
“He punched him about 10 times to the head and upper body,” the Court of Appeal’s decision, released today, detailed.
The victim, identified only as “B” was knocked unconscious and fell onto the footpath but Aitken’s beating continued.
John Aitken's case was heard in the Court of Appeal. Photo / Mark Mitchell
“He stomped on B’s upper body, kicked him twice in the head, struck his head twice, and then a third time before, finally, punching him in the head another two times.”
Aitken threatened to kill B if he didn’t get out of town and also abused B’s cousin when she asked what he had done.
“Aitken’s response was that B ‘shouldn’t go around smashing up 12-year-old boys’. He told her that if she did not ‘shut up’ he would cut off B’s head and kill her with it.”
The sentence was appealed on the grounds the judge’s starting point of seven years imprisonment was too high and he failed to give Aitken enough discount for his personal mitigating circumstances.
Aitken’s lawyer Craig Tuck initially submitted the start point was excessive because the judge found premeditation was an aggravating factor - while Tuck argued the offending was spontaneous.
The lawyer, however, conceded later it would be difficult to challenge the start point and focused on insufficient credit being given for Aitken’s personal circumstances.
Aitken was given a 35 per cent discount on his sentence for guilty pleas, personal background circumstances, attendance at a restorative justice conference, completion of a rehabilitative course and remorse.
His defence claimed he should have been given further reductions resulting in an extra 12 months off his sentence.
The court found that while Aitken’s upbringing had included exposure to violence and gangs, which had some nexus with his offending as it involved him resorting to violent retribution, the credit provided was sufficient.
“The total discount was within the available range for the identified combination of factors,” the appeal court ruled.
For completeness, the court addressed the starting point of seven years’ imprisonment adopted by Judge Harding.
It ruled it was fair and within the appropriate range after identifying the aggravating factors included extreme and unprovoked violence, he targeted the head, the victim was vulnerable and suffered serious injuries.
“Aitken’s offending is aggravated by the element of vigilante action involved,” the decision stated.
“His own explanation for his offending is that he believed B to have assaulted his son in the days prior to the assault. Meting out violent retribution engages this factor.”
Due to the number of aggravating factors identified, it was difficult to see how the starting point could be criticised, the court ruled.
“Indeed, it might well be at the lower end of the available range.”
