Blackett v Police - [2013] NZHC 1675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-419-000024 [2013] NZHC 1675

BETWEEN REX IAN BLACKETT Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 3 July 2013

Appearances: J Gurnick for Appellant
T Clark for Respondent

Judgment: 3 July 2013

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against sentence]

REX IAN BLACKETT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 1675 [3 July 2013]

[1] Mr Blackett pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of unlawfully being in possession of ammunition. On 13 May 2013, Judge Burnett sentenced him to 21 months imprisonment on that charge.[1] He now appeals to this Court against the sentence the Judge imposed on the basis that it was manifestly excessive.

The facts

[1] Police v Blackett DC Hamilton CRI-2012-019-008151, 13 May 2013.

[2] The charge arose as a result of events that occurred on 21 December 2012. On that date the police went to Mr Blackett’s home to execute a warrant issued for his arrest for the purpose of returning him to prison. At that time Mr Blackett was on parole, having been sentenced to four years four months imprisonment on a charge of unlawful sexual connection on 17 December 2008. He was recalled to prison because he had breached his parole conditions by travelling to Rotorua when he was expressly forbidden to do so.

[3] When the police went to Mr Blackett’s address, they asked him if he had anything in his possession that he should not have. He initially indicated that he did not, but when asked again he conceded that he was in possession of something that he should not have. He then showed the police a small lockable safe. When this was opened, the police found that it contained two rifle bolts and 366 rounds of ammunition. Mr Blackett conceded that he did not hold a current firearms licence. His licence had in fact been revoked in 2002.

[4] Mr Blackett explained that, when he had gone to Rotorua, he had visited a friend who was looking after some firearms and ammunition. He said that he wanted the safe, but was unable to open it. For that reason he had brought the safe and its contents back to Hamilton.

The structure of the sentence

[5] The Judge considered that this was serious offending. It involved a considerable quantity of ammunition of different types. She considered the

offending to be premeditated, and that it warranted a starting point of 20 months imprisonment.

[6] The Judge then noted that Mr Blackett has five previous convictions for unlawfully being in possession of firearms. The last of these occurred in 1998. On that occasion, he was sentenced to six months periodic detention and given a final warning that a sentence of imprisonment would follow if he was convicted of similar offending in the future.

[7] The Judge considered the previous convictions warranted an uplift of eight months. She was therefore left with an end starting point of 28 months imprisonment before having regard to mitigating…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Blackett v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 1675
Decision Date: 3 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Rex Ian Blackett v New Zealand Police addressed an appeal by Mr. Blackett against a sentence imposed by the District Court. Mr. Blackett was convicted of unlawfully possessing ammunition, which led to a 21-month imprisonment sentence. The appellant argued that this sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal before the High Court involved determining whether the District Court's sentence was justified or if it should be considered disproportionate.

The court considered the legal issues surrounding the starting point of the sentence and its proportionality given the facts of the case and Mr. Blackett's criminal history. The District Court had determined a starting point of 20 months, which the court found to be excessively high in comparison to similar cases. The court also examined whether the uplifts for Mr. Blackett's previous convictions and the fact that the offence occurred while he was on parole were proportionate. The High Court found that a more appropriate starting point should have been 12 months, with uplifts of three and two months respectively, leading to a total of 17 months before considering mitigating factors. The court decided that the only appropriate discount was for Mr. Blackett's early guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of 13 months imprisonment.

The court allowed the appeal, quashing the original 21-month sentence and substituting it with a 13-month sentence. This decision was grounded in the proportionality of the sentence to the crime and the offender's history, ensuring that the punishment was neither excessive nor disproportionate.

Orders