When questioned soon afterwards, he said police might want to check out the pipe bomb in his lounge.
Lee was arrested and reappeared in court the next day, but this time facing charges of unlawful possession of the two gas canisters, the knife and the pipe bomb.
His identity has been kept secret throughout the judicial process, but at Lee’s sentencing on Monday, Judge Tini Clark was reassured that he wouldn’t be coerced into making more bombs for the wrong people and let name suppression lapse.
‘Death immediate to those within 1km’
It was 10.55am when the pensioner was stopped after going through the court security screening process, and the items were discovered.
After he was arrested and questioned, the NZ Defence Force’s Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit was dispatched.
Initially, it was believed the canisters were also capable of exploding, but on further inspection, it was discovered neither was likely to explode or cause harm.
At 8pm that night, homes within a 100m radius of Lee’s house were evacuated as a search was carried out.
It was then that members of the EOD unit found the pipe bomb, which had a battery source and only required ignition, in his lounge.
Advice from the EOD was that the blast radius from that bomb “would have been felt approximately up to 1km and death would be immediate to anyone in the close vicinity”.
The judge said having Lee at his home remained untenable.
She explained that when she first came across Lee earlier this year, she was told his motivation for making the bomb was his victimisation at the hands of people living close to his house.
“It is quite clear to me that for a period of time, Mr Lee was in fact the target of neighbours in the area.”
Warren Lee pictured outside the Hamilton District Court. Photo / Belinda Feek, Herald composite
Two months before his offending, on August 5, police were called after “screaming and yelling” could be heard coming from his house, along with items being smashed.
When officers arrived, they found windows at the front had been broken and the front door damaged.
“An intoxicated and assaultive neighbour was discovered at the address, and it was alleged that that person had assaulted Mr Lee, who had then armed himself with a knife and a chair to defend himself.”
That neighbour was convicted in the Huntly District Court in January.
Before that incident, in April and May last year, Lee contacted police, reporting that someone had thrown a brick through his car’s rear window and a window of his house.
‘He wasn’t intending to harm anyone’
Hardy had hoped her client could get a home detention sentence, as Lee didn’t want to lose his Kāinga Ora home, which he’d waited two and a half years in emergency accommodation to get.
“He’s concerned that if he’s imprisoned, the people who have targeted him at that address before may take the rest of his possessions out of it.”
But Judge Clark said she had “real concerns” about sending him back there.
She hadn’t been given any information confirming that it was safe for him to return, despite him having breached his bail conditions and returned there himself months ago.
“This is serious offending arising out of tensions and the relationships with people in that area,” she said.
The judge said if Hardy couldn’t be sure the same issues wouldn’t arise, she would send Lee to prison but grant him leave to apply for home detention if he finds a different address.
“From what you’re telling me, there’s a real concern that his belongings might be stolen,” the judge said.
“So the whole atmosphere in that area is undesirable, and I just don’t feel like it would be a responsible step for the court to take unless something significant has changed.
“A 24-7 curfew would just make him more vulnerable than before.”
Hardy said her client was remorseful for what happened, and “was not intending to cause anybody harm”.
Hardy agreed she didn’t have grounds to oppose name suppression, but successfully argued against his photo being taken inside the courtroom.
‘Makes no sense whatsoever’
Judge Clark labelled Lee’s offending as “serious”.
“To make a pipe bomb for self-defence reasons makes no sense to me whatsoever, particularly when I read through the summary of facts, which suggests that the harm that that particular item could cause was wide-ranging.
“That would have been known to Mr Lee, who has some previous history and knowledge due to his employment in years past.”
NZME understands Lee has previously worked in a quarry.
However, it did make a difference that his intention “was not racially motivated or arising out of some ill will towards others, but rather his misguided logic in relation to protecting himself”.
In a pre-sentence report, Lee was described as someone who had a “confrontational attitude … was entitled, defiant, who lacked respect for societal boundaries and perhaps came across as someone who lived above the law, and [had] a disregard for others”.
She understood his concerns about losing his house and it was right for him to say he shouldn’t be driven out, but he could have asked Kāinga Ora for another property to be assigned to him.
Judge Clark took an overall starting point of 24 months’ prison, before applying various discounts and coming to an end term of 11 months.
However, she granted him leave to apply for home detention should a different property become available.
Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for 10 years and has been a journalist for 21.