On January 12, 2026, just over a month after his statutory release date for an earlier smash-and-grab at Michael Hill jewellers, Buchanan and his co-offenders arrived at a Tauranga house in two cars.

The carloads got out, and young adults and teens in the house saw them approaching – some with machetes, all in balaclavas.

A 20-year-old and two 16-year-olds locked the doors and hid in a bedroom.

One offender tried to get in through a sliding glass door while holding a machete, but found it locked, so the group kicked in the front door.

They were yelling, “Where is the stuff?”, as they dispersed throughout the house, where six people were in various rooms.

In one room, an offender confronted a 23-year-old, pointing a machete at his chest before grabbing his Xbox, a controller and his phone.

Three offenders went into a room where the 20-year-old and two 16-year-olds were hiding, and one punched the 20-year-old in the throat, then held a machete to his stomach.

Another offender punched one of the 16-year-olds in the head about 10 times, causing his vision to go white, while another victim hid under the bed.

As the three offenders backed out of the room, the 16-year-old who’d been punched in the head was worried the intruders would go into the room where there were two children, aged 8 and 12.

He stood in front of the door, telling the offenders not to go in there.

The offenders stayed out of that room but went into the teen’s room and ransacked it, taking hoodies, sweatpants, and five pairs of Nike shoes.

Two other Xboxes and a headset were taken from the house.

That evening, police searched Buchanan’s vehicle and found a machete under the driver’s seat, and an Xbox on the back seat with a serial number matching packaging at the victims’ house.

Buchanan was arrested on January 16, but at the station refused to comply with a police officer’s requests for him to put his hands on the wall to be searched.

He punched the officer in the jaw twice and attempted to punch him a third time.

Later, while in a cell, he removed metal bolts from the wall, began tearing a blanket, and scratched the walls with the bolts. He disassembled thick metal plates from within the cell, throwing them at the door and causing it to splinter and crack.

He was charged with aggravated burglary, assaulting a police officer, and wilful damage, and pleaded guilty to the three charges.

Victims’ mother says it was ‘the most terrifying experience’ of her children’s lives

The mother of some of the victims provided a victim impact statement, in which she said before the incident, she’d felt “safe and secure” raising her children in the community.

“Although I faced the challenges of being a solo mother, I worked hard to provide a stable, loving and safe home,” she said.

But in the immediate aftermath of the burglary, her 8-year-old daughter suffered such severe distress that she vomited repeatedly throughout the night and into the following day.

Her 11-year-old son had sentimental sports medals taken, which couldn’t be replaced, along with his Xbox and controllers.

After being a “confident and successful young player”, he now needed encouragement just to participate in sport.

Her older children had stopped living at home, and in some cases even visiting, “because it reminds them of the most terrifying experiences of their lives”.

“Following the home invasion, my younger children and I could no longer stay in our home because we were too frightened,” she said, adding that although they had returned, they’ve never felt “truly safe” again.

“The offenders did not only steal physical property, they stole our sense of safety, our peace of mind, and the closeness of our family.”

The assaulted police officer also provided a victim impact statement, in which he said the force of the punch was significant.

He said Buchanan appeared “extremely angry” and “showed little regard for his actions or the potential consequences for those around him”.

The officer had been assaulted on several occasions during his time with police, but this was by far “the most serious and impactful assault I have experienced”.

“While this assault did not result in any financial loss, it has had a psychological impact. Since the incident, I have found myself less trusting of others and more cautious in my interactions with people.”

A ‘complex’ sentencing exercise

When it came to sentencing, Judge Melinda Mason noted there were “complex issues” with the case.

It wasn’t clear exactly what role Buchanan had played in the offending, so he was essentially sentenced as a “party” under section 66 of the Crimes Act.

The Crown argued a starting point of eight-and-a-half years was appropriate on the lead charge of aggravated burglary, with a four-month uplift for the other charges.

They also asked for uplifts for previous convictions and offending while on electronically monitored parole conditions.

They agreed with a 25% discount for guilty plea, and said a 15% discount for both youth and background was sufficient.

Crown prosecutor Ellie Thompson said Buchanan had been given a 20% reduction for youth in 2024 for the smash and grab offending, and 10% was appropriate this time.

“...Recognising that there is an element of immaturity, an element of impulsivity,” she said.

“However, the Crown submit that it can’t be said that he isn’t fully aware of the consequences that come with this type of offending.”

An additional 5% for his background, she argued, was sufficient.

This would keep the discounts within the 40% discount cap, now in the sentencing regime, and the Crown argued this was appropriate.

“The Crown say there’s no manifestly unjust outcome to that sentence. It is appropriate in the circumstances.”

She said Buchanan was “unfortunately a prolific offender of this nature”, and the need for public safety and deterrence meant his offending ought to be met with a “stern response from the courts”.

Defence lawyer Rachael Adams said the discounts should be much higher for both youth and background.

“I mean no disrespect to his parents who are here, when I describe [his background], as I have in my submissions, as appalling even by the standards which we generally see in this court,” she said.

As to his youth, she said the Court of Appeal guidance made it “very clear” that young people are neurologically different and don’t have the developmental capacity to make choices that adults do.

“It goes directly to the actual culpability and the same with the background where there’s such a clear nexus between where he comes from and where he has ended up,” she said.

Along with the guideline Court of Appeal judgment of Mako, the judge assessed other aggravated burglary cases, particularly those involving young offenders.

She noted the aggravating factors in the offending included the home invasion at night, intimidation and use of disguises, presence of weapons, the loss of items and multiple offenders.

The judge adopted a starting point of seven years for the aggravated burglary, plus a three-month uplift for the other charges.

The judge agreed with Adams that a 20% discount for youth was appropriate, especially given his youthful and naive impulsivity had clearly been at play.

He’d offended while wearing his anklet, despite being “acutely aware” it tracked his location, making it inevitable he’d be caught.

She acknowledged the other reason young people were given greater discounts was because they had a greater capacity for rehabilitation.

The judge said Buchanan had been accepted into a youth rehabilitation programme at the Grace Foundation, and she wondered why the Parole Board hadn’t sent him there following his last sentence.

“Rather than sending you back into an environment where you were going to go back to exactly the same lifestyle that you’ve been leading prior to your imprisonment,” she said.

He appeared to have had “very little support” once released, but because he’d been in prison, had a greater set of criminal associates, making it “almost inevitable” that he would return to court with this type of offending.

She then turned to details about his background, agreeing with Adams that it was “one of the worst”.

“There was alcohol abuse, parental neglect, parental incarceration, violence towards you,” she said.

“You were placed into state care and the abuse continued while you were in state care. There was gang exposure at a very early age, substance abuse.”

The report said he was likely to have ADHD and “severe conduct disorder”.

It highlighted his difficulty with psychological flexibility, relationship skills, social judgment, empathy, information processing, and lack of consequential thinking.

This meant Buchanan was more likely to be an offender than those born into good childhoods.

She accepted that a 20% discount for youth and a 10% discount for background was appropriate.

His sentence was uplifted by three months to account for his criminal history, and a further three months because the offending happened while on electronically monitored parole conditions.

The judge had to assess whether capping the discounts at 40%, as now stipulated in the Sentencing Act, rather than her assessed appropriate level of 55%, would be “manifestly unjust”.

She acknowledged the 40% cap was a “relatively new” section of the Sentencing Act, and there was “not a lot of guidance” about applying the “manifestly unjust” exception.

Given Buchanan’s youth – and the youthful impulsivity of the offending – his background issues, the impact long prison sentences had on young people, and Buchanan’s prospects of rehabilitation with the Grace Foundation, she decided the 40% cap would be manifestly unjust in his case.

She applied the 55% in discounts, along with the uplifts.

That led to an end sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment.

Because Buchanan was convicted of an aggravated burglary, he was subject to the three strikes law, and received his first warning.

The first warning means that if he is convicted of any serious violence offence, other than murder, after the warning and a judge sentences him to more than 24 months’ imprisonment, then he will serve that sentence without parole or early release.

Having been given a youth discount, he would not be entitled to a youth discount again for any future offending.

Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.

To learn more about this case and how sentencing works in New Zealand, watch the latest episode of the Open Justice podcast Case by Case in the video above, or listen to the audio episode here: