Convicted Child Rapist Daniel Livingstone Sentenced for Shooting Dog and Attacking Victim

Hamilton, New Zealand — A man with a history of violent crime, Daniel 'Danny' Livingstone, was sentenced on May 4 this year for shooting a dog and attacking its owner in a supermarket in Hamilton. The incident, which occurred around 11:45 a.m., has sparked renewed public concern about the risks posed by individuals with criminal histories who have been released into the community.

Background on Livingstone's Criminal History

Livingstone, now 38, was previously convicted of abducting and raping a 10-year-old girl in Whangārei in 2006. At the time, he was 19 years old and was sentenced to eight years in prison. After serving his full term, he was released in 2014 under a seven-year Extended Supervision Order (ESO), which required him to wear an ankle bracelet with a GPS tracker. However, Livingstone removed the bracelet in August 2015 and fled, prompting a large-scale manhunt. Police issued a public alert at the time, emphasizing that he was a high-risk individual and should not be approached.

The Incident in Hamilton

On May 4, Livingstone was seen walking past a vehicle parked at a supermarket in Hamilton. Inside the car were the dog, Brownie, and the dog’s 9-year-old owner. Brownie barked at Livingstone, prompting him to pull out an air pistol he had concealed in his pants. He fired a shot at the dog, striking her in the head and causing her to bark in distress.

The owners confronted Livingstone, asking him why he had shot the dog. This led to a heated argument. In response, Livingstone pulled out the air pistol again and fired twice at one of the men, hitting him in the right arm. He then fled on foot toward Grantham St, where he was arrested after running into a patrol car.

Police Find Evidence of Illegal Possession

During the arrest, police searched Livingstone's backpack and discovered the air pistol along with a stash of copper-coated pellets. Fortunately, neither the man nor Brownie suffered any injuries from the shots.

Sentencing and Judicial Considerations

Livingstone appeared before Judge Noel Cocurullo for sentencing after having accepted a sentence indication on charges of cruelty to an animal and assaulting a person using a firearm. The judge took a starting point of 10 months' jail and added a 5 percent uplift for Livingstone’s criminal history. However, a 20 percent credit was applied for his guilty plea, resulting in an eight-month prison sentence.

Despite the sentence, the judge noted that Livingstone would be released soon, as he had effectively served his time while remanded on bail. This has raised concerns among community members and legal experts about the adequacy of current supervision measures for high-risk offenders.

Public and Legal Reactions

Local residents have expressed outrage over the incident, particularly given Livingstone’s history of violent crime. Some have called for stricter oversight of individuals on ESOs, arguing that the system may not be sufficient to prevent recidivism. Legal experts have also weighed in, emphasizing the need for a more robust approach to managing high-risk offenders in the community.

While the court has taken into account Livingstone’s guilty plea and the mitigating factors, critics argue that the sentence does not fully reflect the severity of the crime or the risk he poses to the public. This case has reignited a broader debate about the effectiveness of current sentencing and supervision practices for repeat offenders.

This incident serves as a stark reminder of the potential dangers posed by individuals with a history of violent crime who are released into society. It is a call to action for policymakers, law enforcement, and the community to work together to ensure that such individuals are properly managed and monitored.