Seeking help for a broken-down 4WD led to violent confrontation with armed farmer

A four-wheel-drive trip took a dramatic turn when a vehicle broke down in a riverbed and two men seeking help were met by a farmer carrying a rifle after a rabbit-shooting trip. 

The confrontation on the Canterbury farm three years ago left Jesse Johnson, also known as Jesse Whitaker, with a criminal conviction he has spent the past 18 months trying to overturn. 

He has long argued he acted in self-defence when confronted by the farmer carrying the rifle. 

While a jury acquitted him on three assault charges arising from the incident, it found him guilty of a representative charge of common assault after concluding he had “gone berserk”, punching the farmer in the head, throat and chest, court documents show. 

Johnson was sentenced following a trial in the Christchurch District Court in April 2025. 

He appealed unsuccessfully to the High Court, and the Court of Appeal has now declined his application to bring a second appeal. 

Broke down 

According to the senior court’s recent decision, on September 2, 2023, Johnson and others were four-wheel driving in the Waipara Riverbed. 

One of the vehicles broke down, so Johnson and another man went to a nearby farm seeking help. 

No one was there, so the pair entered a large open shed housing a tractor. 

The farm owner, carrying a rifle, and his daughter walked into the farmyard after rabbit shooting. 

Johnson asked the farmer for help using the tractor to assist the broken-down four-wheel drive, but the farmer refused. 

A disagreement led to a scuffle and violence. 

An allegation that Johnson pinned the farmer by his throat and punched him in the face while trying to take the firearm wasn’t proven. 

Nor were allegations that he had assaulted the farmer’s daughter. 

The only charge the jury was convinced beyond reasonable doubt of was Johnson punching the farmer in the head, throat and chest. 

Discharge sought but declined 

After being found guilty, Johnson sought a discharge without conviction, but the application was declined and he was instead sentenced to 40 hours’ community work on the assault charge. 

He was sentenced to a further 40 hours’ community work upon remission of outstanding fines of between $2000 and $3000. 

Johnson successfully appealed against the sentence when the High Court found flaws in the lower court’s sentencing procedure and set aside the order remitting fines and the related 40 hours’ community work sentence. 

Johnson’s lawyer said the approach was erroneous, which the Crown accepted and Justice Robert Osborne agreed. 

He quashed the sentence, noting Johnson had already completed 40 hours of community work. 

Johnson then appealed to the Court of Appeal in a further bid to wipe the conviction. 

He had argued it was the farmer who had been the aggressor. 

The Court of Appeal said the argument was supported in part by a video taken by the farmer’s daughter on her phone. 

But Justices Rebecca Ellis, Cameron Mander and Ian Gault were not satisfied the proposed appeal met the threshold test for general or public importance, or that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, or would occur if the appeal was not heard. 

They said in their decision this month the question of the farmer’s “motive to lie”, and the jeopardy he was potentially in, was squarely before the jury. 

Johnson’s appeal to the High Court was advanced on two grounds but only one remained relevant in the Court of Appeal. 

His lawyer said the District Court judge ought to have directed the jury to treat the farmer’s evidence with caution because it may have been unreliable. 

‘Farmer had motive’ 

Johnson contended that the farmer had a motive to give false evidence prejudicial to Johnson because he was potentially in jeopardy as a result of the assault and threat shown on the video. 

Both higher courts were satisfied that a reliability direction was not necessary. 

Justice Ellis said the possibility that the victim’s account of the relevant events was influenced by a motive to avoid prosecution for his own actions was squarely before the jury. 

“The victim was cross-examined extensively on the basis he was fabricating much of his evidence, minimising his own actions and inflating Mr Johnson’s actions to suit his own purposes. 

The judge also reminded the jury of that in his summing up, Justice Ellis said. 

“In this case, the jury would not have been materially assisted by such a direction. I am satisfied that for these reasons, the judge did not err by not giving a reliability direction.” 

Johnson told NZME he was in talks with his lawyer about possible further steps. 

Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.