Mr Blackler was convicted of manslaughter following trial by jury. The presiding Judge, Dunningham J, sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of three and a half years.[1]
[1]R v Blackler [2018] NZHC 830.
Mr Blackler filed a notice of appeal against both his conviction and sentence. He subsequently abandoned his conviction appeal. The appeal therefore proceeded as an appeal against sentence only.
The appeal was filed 20 days out of time. The delay was short, and the Crown did not oppose an extension of time, which is accordingly granted.

The facts of the offending

The person killed by Mr Blackler was his friend and flatmate Mr Fahey. On the day in question the two men had been drinking together and consumed a significant amount of alcohol. At some point, Mr Fahey angered Mr Blackler by making disparaging comments with a sexual overtone regarding the latter’s sister who was terminally ill. Mr Blackler responded by attacking Mr Fahey, striking him multiple times to the head and neck area with his fists.
Mr Fahey suffered serious facial injuries as a result of the attack: a fractured hyoid bone, a lip split from his mouth to his nose, a broken nose, a torn eyelid, as well as extensive bruising on the inner of both eye sockets, cheeks and throat. The injuries were such that his face was said to be almost unrecognisable.
The injuries inflicted were not in themselves fatal and would not have resulted in the death of a healthy person. However, Mr Fahey had a pre-existing heart condition and the attack in combination with his ill-health caused his death. In legal terms, the attack, although not the sole cause of death, was a substantial and operative cause.
After the attack, Mr Blackler attempted to clean the blood off himself and then rang his fiancée to say he thought he may have killed his best friend. He suggested burning down the house to cover his tracks. He then left and went to his fiancee’s house.
The following morning, his fiancée and an associate went to Mr Fahey’s house and found him lying face down on the ground dead. They reported this back to Mr Blackler and suggested he hand himself in to police which he later did.
Mr Blackler stood trial for manslaughter or in the alternative wounding with intent to injure. His defence was to deny committing any violence at all, any intent to injure…

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 Blackler v R

Details

AGLC: Blackler v R [2019] NZCA 232
Case: [2019] NZCA 232
Decision Date: 18 June 2019 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Mr. Jason Karl Blackler, the appellant, challenged the sentence imposed on him by the High Court for manslaughter. The respondent was the Crown, represented by the Solicitor-General. The appeal was filed 20 days out of time, but the Crown did not oppose an extension of time, which was granted. The appeal was against the sentence only, as the appellant had abandoned the appeal against his conviction.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the starting point was too high, the uplift for previous convictions was excessive, and the imposition of a minimum period of imprisonment was unwarranted. The Court examined the reasoning behind the Judge’s decision to impose a six-year starting point, a 12-month uplift for the appellant’s criminal history, and a three and a half year minimum period of imprisonment.

The Court found that the starting point of six years’ imprisonment was appropriate given the severity of the violence inflicted on the victim and the callous conduct of the appellant after the assault. Although the appellant’s offending was impulsive and provoked, it did not materially reduce his culpability. The Court also upheld the 12-month uplift for the appellant’s criminal history, noting the persistence of violent offending over many years and the fact that the index offence occurred while on post-release conditions. However, the Court reduced the minimum period of imprisonment to three years and six months, considering it insufficient to denounce the appellant’s conduct and hold him accountable for the harm caused.

Orders