‘Goldfish In Shark Tank’ (Press, 18 June 1988)

Te Rangi Tuatahi Stirling, a 26-year-old factory worker, was sentenced to four months of periodic detention and ordered to pay $1,000 towards prosecution costs after being found guilty of wounding Richard Kerry Bentley, aged 20, with intent to injure. The incident occurred on November 6, 1987, when Stirling stabbed Bentley in the heart with a vegetable knife during an alcohol-fuelled argument in their flat, where they lived together in a domestic relationship. During the trial, it was revealed that Stirling had been subjected to repeated brutal assaults by Bentley, which the court described as sadistic and torturous. Despite this violence, the two had reconciled and Bentley did not wish to see Stirling imprisoned. Evidence indicated that after a night of heavy drinking involving rum, beer, wine, and whisky, an argument broke out, leading to the stabbing. Bentley suffered serious injuries, requiring extensive surgery and a transfusion of half his blood. Stirling's defence counsel, Mr Bob Murfitt, argued that sending Stirling to prison would be akin to placing a "goldfish in a shark tank," and stressed that this was an exceptional case that did not warrant incarceration. The jury acknowledged the complexities of their relationship but did not deem Stirling’s actions as self-defence. Mr Murfitt contended that Stirling's actions were a spontaneous response resulting from a history of significant mistreatment and violence at the hands of Bentley. Mr Justice Williamson noted that while the stabbing could not be justified, it emerged from a context of ongoing domestic violence and that both men did not desire to be separated. He highlighted Stirling's remorse and pointed out that he acted quickly to seek medical help for Bentley, ultimately saving his life. The judge took into account Stirling's background as a first offender and his supportive family, concluding that the effects of imprisonment on Stirling would be exceptionally significant. The judge remarked on the nature of their relationship, suggesting that it might be likened to a form of de facto marriage, and observed that the issues between them were not solely related to their homosexuality. Thus, while acknowledging the violence and complexity of their relationship, he imposed a lighter sentence, reflecting a recognition of the circumstances surrounding the case.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand