Blackley v The King - [2025] NZHC 881

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2025-409-57 [2025] NZHC 881

BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER BLACKLEY
Appellant

AND THE KING
Respondent

Hearing: 10 April 2025

Appearances: A M McCormick for Appellant
P J Brand for Respondent

Judgment: 10 April 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF EATON J

BLACKLEY v R [2025] NZHC 881 [10 April 2025]

Introduction

[1] Christopher Blackley pleaded guilty to arson1 and possession of a methamphetamine utensil.2 He was sentenced by Judge Gilbert on 21 August 2024 to two years and eight months’ imprisonment.3 He appeals this sentence on the grounds the total uplift of 15 per cent for previous convictions and for offending while on sentence was too high, resulting in a manifestly excessive end sentence.

Facts

[2] The arson was committed on 6 September 2023. At that time Mr Blackley was serving a sentence on five months’ home detention imposed on 5 May 2023 following a burglary conviction. He was relocated to a motel complex consisting of multiple units on 5 September 2023. At around 5 pm on 6 September, he dialled 111 from his cell phone. He told the police operator he could hear his neighbours talking about him in the next room and believed they were going to shoot him. Mr Blackley told the operator he wanted to set the place on fire. He then set fire to a mattress, which quickly engulfed the room. The operator told him to leave the room. Mr Blackley asked to be taken to the police station. In the meantime, the fire spread through an open window, causing the upstairs curtains to catch fire and engulfing the upstairs unit. Mr Blackley’s unit sustained extensive damage to the extent it is uninhabitable. The upstairs unit suffered extensive fire damage to one bedroom and smoke damage to the rest of the unit.

[3] Other tenants of the premises had to be evacuated. At around 5.30 pm, Mr Blackley was arrested. A post arrest search revealed a used glass methamphetamine pipe in his bag.

[4] The arson caused damage in the sum of $64,000. Further financial loss has resulted from the motel owners not being able to rent the room.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 267(1)(b); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 13(1)(a) and (3); maximum penalty one year imprisonment or $500 fine.
3      R v Blackley [2024] NZDC 20050.

District Court Decision

[5] The Judge considered the case was most analogous to Hall v R4 and adopted a starting point of three years and 10 months’ imprisonment. An uplift of 7.5 per cent for previous convictions and another 7.5 per cent for offending on sentence were applied. The Judge allowed a 20 per cent deduction for guilty pleas and a further global deduction of 25 per cent to recognise personal mitigating factors including background, mental health and methamphetamine use. The net deduction of 30 per cent led to the end sentence of two years and eight…

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 Blackley v The King

Details

AGLC: Blackley v The King [2025] NZHC 881
Case: [2025] NZHC 881
Decision Date: 10 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blackley v The King involved an appeal against sentence by Christopher Blackley, who had been convicted of arson and possession of a methamphetamine utensil. The District Court had sentenced Blackley to two years and eight months’ imprisonment, which he appealed on the grounds that the 15 per cent total uplift for previous convictions and for offending while on sentence was excessive. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and not justified by the relevant sentencing principles.

The Court found that while the starting point adopted by the District Court was within the appropriate range, the 15 per cent uplift for previous convictions and for being on sentence at the time of the offending was excessive. The Court noted that an uplift for previous convictions may be appropriate under certain circumstances, but given Blackley's extensive criminal history, the Court found that it did not reflect greater culpability. The Court also found that an uplift for offending on sentence was not appropriate, as the offending was likely the consequence of a paranoid psychotic experience and did not reflect any disregard for the prior sentence imposed by the court.

As a result, the Court allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment with a sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment, rounded down. The Court also noted that the 25 per cent global deduction for personal mitigating factors, including background, mental health, and methamphetamine use, was appropriate and that the sentence being appealed was not manifestly excessive. The Court's decision highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing, including the offender's mental health and the nature of their criminal history.

Orders