[2] On 30 September 2021, Mr Beaumont was sentenced in the Dunedin District Court by Judge M B T Turner to three years and seven months’ imprisonment.9

[3] Mr Beaumont has appealed against three of his convictions on the basis that, by dint of the charges’ maximum sentences, such charges were time-barred and those charges are therefore nullities. The Crown acknowledges that contention. That aspect of the appeal will be allowed and the convictions quashed.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 240(1)(a)–(b) and 241(a) – maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, ss 240(1)(d) and 241(a) – maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, ss 219 and 223(b) – maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, s 226(1) – maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act, ss 240(1)(a) and 241(b) – maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act, ss 240(1)(d) and 241(b) – maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment.
7      Crimes Act, ss 240(1)(a) and 241(c) – maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
8      Crimes Act, ss 240(1)(d) and 241(c) – maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.
9      Police v Beaumont [2021] NZDC 19652.

[4] Mr Beaumont also appeals against his sentence on the basis it is manifestly excessive because the Judge adopted an excessively high starting point, imposed excessive uplifts for personal aggravating factors, and did not allow a discount for restorative justice.

Facts

[5] Mr Beaumont’s offending spanned the thirty-months period between 1 December 2018 and 21 May 2021, starting when he was 34 years old. It occurred across Central and North Otago, South Canterbury, Canterbury and Wellington. Numerous summaries of facts covered the offending. As was summarised by the sentencing Judge, it fell into five categories:

(a)Online sales of non-existent items (including containers, shelving, car parts, computers, a PlayStation console and other electronic equipment). Mr Beaumont took payment for the “goods” but did not deliver them. He initially made excuses for the non-delivery but later ceased communication with the purchasers.

(b)Repair work for which Mr Beaumont quoted and received a deposit, but did not do the work. (In that regard Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beaumont v Police

Details

AGLC: Beaumont v Police [2022] NZHC 472
Case: [2022] NZHC 472
Decision Date: 16 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Blair Beaumont appeals against three of his convictions on the basis that they are time-barred and therefore nullities. He also appeals against his sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive. The Crown acknowledges Beaumont's contention that the three convictions are time-barred. The court found that the appeal against conviction should be allowed and the convictions quashed. In relation to the sentence, the court found that the starting point of three years and ten months' imprisonment was appropriate, and the uplift for personal aggravating factors was not excessive. The court also found that the sentence of three years and seven months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

The court found that the three convictions in question were time-barred and therefore nullities. The court noted that the amended charges had been filed and amended well outside the six-month timeframe, and that there was nothing before the court capable of rectification. The court found that the appeal against conviction should be allowed and the convictions quashed.

The court found that the starting point of three years and ten months' imprisonment was appropriate, given the seriousness of the offending and the need for individual deterrence. The court also found that the uplift for personal aggravating factors was not excessive, given the multiple factors it reflected. The court noted that the sentence of three years and seven months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, even when applying the methodology in Moses v R.

The court quashed the three convictions and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

Orders