Richard Sivell Jailed for Death Threats Against Former PM Jacinda Ardern

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been the subject of a high-profile legal case involving Richard Trevor Sivell, who was recently sentenced to 11 months in prison for making online death threats against her. The case, which has drawn significant public and media attention, highlights the serious consequences of online harassment and threats against public figures.

Sivell, 43, was convicted in October 2024 after a trial that examined his online activity between November 2021 and January 2022—a period just before the Parliament protests began. During this time, he posted multiple death threats against Ardern on the social media platform Telegram, a hub for conspiracists and anti-government groups. The posts included explicit language such as expressing a desire to “execute” Ardern and even referencing the gallows.

At his trial, Sivell denied making any direct threats and claimed he was “simply sharing an opinion” on an online forum. He also insisted that he had been falsely accused and that the charges against him were part of a broader conspiracy. However, the court rejected these claims, pointing out that the threats were made on publicly accessible platforms and that they targeted a high-ranking public official.

Judge Christopher Harding emphasized the severity of Sivell's actions, calling them “premeditated offending” and noting that the threats were made during a heightened period of the pandemic response. The judge also acknowledged that while there was no evidence Sivell had the capability to carry out the threats, the nature and public accessibility of the posts were aggravating factors.

During the sentencing, Sivell was asked by the judge what he wanted to say before being sentenced. He expressed shock at being in prison and claimed he had never met or spoken directly to Ardern. He also requested that the charges be dismissed, stating he had been “falsely imprisoned.” Despite his claims, the judge noted that Sivell had received one of the pre-sentence reports, which recommended a prison sentence.

While Sivell had spent 18 months on restrictive bail conditions, the judge ruled that a prison sentence was necessary to ensure the least restrictive outcome for the victim and to align with similar cases. The sentence was imposed without any special release conditions, as the judge believed Sivell would be unlikely to comply with any.

Sivell’s case has sparked a broader discussion about online speech, the legal consequences of making threats, and the challenges faced by law enforcement in dealing with digital crimes. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of responsible internet use and the potential real-world consequences of online harassment.

As the legal system continues to grapple with the complexities of digital communication, Sivell’s case underscores the need for clear legal boundaries and the enforcement of laws that protect public officials from online threats.