A pair of “poachers” who left a bull alive but riddled with arrows have both pointed the finger at each other in court - but have both come out without convictions.

The men, who have permanent name suppression, appeared in the Porirua District Court this afternoon for sentencing, having earlier pleaded guilty to charges of ill-treating animals.

Judge Bruce Davidson said the pair, aged 18 and 22 years old at the time, drove to a rural area near Porirua in the early hours of August 17, 2021 to hunt for feral pigs. They were towing a trailer carrying food scraps to be used as bait to trap the pigs, but had no success.

“As you were driving away you saw a bull and a steer in a paddock. The vehicle in which you were in was stopped. Bolt cutters from inside the vehicle were used to cut into the fence,” Judge Davidson said.

A crossbow was used to fire three arrows at the bull, hitting it in the stomach and shoulder area. Another arrow was fired at the steer, hitting it in the rump area.

The name suppression order was needed to keep in line with the basis of the discharge order, the judge said. Photo / File

“You left, leaving both animals wounded and distressed. The animals were found the next day.”

The bull was alive with three arrows protruding from it, and was “clearly suffering”. The steer survived but was left lame after developing an infection in its wound.

“This of course must have caused significant stress and suffering to both animals.”

When arrested, the men blamed each other for the offending, and disagreements over who fired the arrows were again aired in court today.

While the summary of facts was amended to say the older of the two men stayed in the car while the other fired the arrow, the other man’s lawyer, Jason Owers, challenged that.

“The idea that [the co-defendant] sat in the car and waited while [my client] ran around in the field has an absurdity to it when one looks at it through the lens of common sense.”

Judge Davidson said he had “grave doubts” the older man had lesser culpability, “but I’m forced to proceed on that basis because of the way that you’ve been charged.

“Because I’m concerned the co-defendant . . . has been unfairly fitted up, I intend to exercise caution dealing with him.”

He said the way the “tension” between the two men’s claims had played out in court had “become quite disturbing”.

One of the owners of the animals read his victim impact statement out in court, saying he and his partner feared “poachers” when they discovered one of the fences on their rural farm had been cut “completely open”.

A bull was left with three arrows in its body. Photo / Stock

“I found the bull in the back of the paddock in a pitiful but alert state with multiple arrows and a deep wound on his shoulder,” he said.

The vet was called, but the owner’s brother had to euthanise the bull because it was unsafe for the vet to do so with drugs.

“Finding injuries on the steer the next day added to this trauma,” the owner said.

He said there were “many victims” in this case, and while the bull could not speak for itself, the vet had told him it would have been stressful for the animal.

“The rural community likely also feels this pain more than the average city dweller.”

Defence lawyer Phillip Mitchell said his client, the older man, was socially isolated in school due to a medical condition.

“Under these circumstances” he formed a friendship with the co-defendant, one which was “characterised by reckless and delinquent behaviour over some months”.

Since the offending he has removed drugs and alcohol from his life and is “focused on being a good citizen”. He is also now running a successful business.

Mitchell said the offending “can and should be seen as a one-off” and asked the judge to discharge him without conviction.

Owers said mitigating factors for his client included that he attended a restorative justice meeting, expressed remorse, and had attended some counselling.

His client was 18 at the time of the offending, and his youth should be factored into final sentence, Owers said. He had also set up his own business with his brother in Auckland.

Judge Davidson said he was treating both men as first-time offenders, and felt it was unlikely they would offend again. He said the consequences of a conviction would undo the defendants’ progress they had made in their own lives.

In making that decision, he pointed to issues around the defendants’ ages, their immaturity, and the “repugnant nature of such offending and how that might affect future career prospects”.

He discharged both without conviction, but ordered the younger man to pay $3500 in reparation.

Both men also applied for permanent name suppression, which was opposed by NZME and police.

But Judge Davidson said to name them would undermine the the basis of the discharge without conviction, and granted suppression.

Melissa Nightingale is a Wellington-based reporter who covers crime, justice, and news in the capital. She joined the Herald in 2016 and has worked as a journalist for 10 years.