Blackley v The Queen

[2020] NZHC 3048

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2020-443-019

[2020] NZHC 3048

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER JOHN BLACKLEY

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:

16 November 2020

Appearances:

N L Laird for the Appellant

J E Bourke for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

[1]    Mr Blackley entered pleas of guilty to charges of aggravated robbery, possession of MDMA1 and possession of methamphetamine, on 21 November 2019.2 He had accepted a sentence indication given on 12 November 2019. Mr Blackley was finally sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment in the New Plymouth District Court on 14 February 2020.3

[2]    Mr Blackley appeals this sentence on the basis that a cultural report pursuant to s 27 was not prepared in time for the hearing, so the Judge did not consider the cultural factors which Mr Blackley says would have allowed a further discount if the information had been available to the Judge.

1      A recreational drug known as Ecstasy.

2      Crimes Act 1961, s 235 (maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment) and Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7 (maximum sentence of three months’ imprisonment and/or a $500 fine for MDMA and six months’ imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine for methamphetamine).

3      R v Blackley [2020] NZDC 2467.

BLACKLEY v R [2020] NZHC 3048 [16 November 2020]

[3]    The Crown says that the report is not fresh evidence but, nevertheless, accepts it is credible. It anticipates that the report is likely to be admitted under the Court’s discretion. It submits a discount in the range of 10 to 15 per cent might be appropriate if the Court considered it appropriate to both admit the cultural report as evidence and to undertake a reconsideration of sentence.

[4]    I conclude that it is in the interests of justice that the report be admitted and considered on appeal. Both Ms Laird, for Mr Blackley, and the Crown urge that the matter be dealt with today on appeal rather than remitting it to the District Court for consideration. Therefore, I will also reconsider the sentence. I will deal with the leave application and the sentence in more detail below.4

Background

[5]    Mr Blackley and two associates travelled to New Plymouth on 14 May 2019. The next day, Mr Blackley and one associate went around to a bar about just after

1.00 pm. His associate was disguised with a black hoodie and black bandanna and was wearing dark clothing. Mr Blackley was wearing dark clothing with a hoodie and dark sunglasses. His associate produced a firearm and pointed it at one of the staff, demanding they be given money. Mr Blackley stood close to his associate with his hands in his pockets. $2,600 was handed over from the till.

[6]    On 6 June 2019, Mr Blackley was a passenger in a vehicle in Palmerston North which was pulled over by the police. He was arrested on an unrelated matter, a warrantless search was invoked and the officers located two point bags of methamphetamine, nine point bags of ecstasy and a glass meth pipe. He admitted to possession for personal use.

District Court decision

[7]    I turn to consider the District Court decision. In the sentence indication for the appellant and one of his associates, the Judge referred to R v Mako as the tariff case

4      This decision was delivered orally and has been amended in written form only for grammar and flow, with the addition of footnotes.

for aggravated robbery.5 She identified the aggravating features as being the fact there were two participants, the moderate to high degree of premeditation (inferring they had travelled to New Plymouth to carry out the robbery), the firearm, the disguises (accepting that they were rudimentary), the presence of three staff and a member of the public, and the financial and emotional impact on the victims. The Judge said it fell within the example given in R v Mako of a burglary of a commercial premises where members of the public are present, targeting money and tills by a group with a lethal weapon, disguises and indications of preparation. Accordingly, she set a starting point of six years.

[8]    She noted Mr Blackley had many relevant prior convictions, with some for burglary. He was subject to a community work sentence at the time of offending. He has previously received a first strike warning for aggravated robbery. The Judge indicated she would not apply an uplift for previous convictions as the loss of parole due to the second strike was sufficient. The Judge left personal factors to be dealt with at sentencing, noting that counsel for the appellant wished to obtain various reports. She gave the full discount for an early guilty plea and noted the two other charges against Mr Blackley for methamphetamine and ecstasy possession, for which she indicated sentences of two months to be served concurrently.

[9]    Mr Blackley now says that he requested his lawyer to obtain a cultural report. He says he recalls discussing the names of some people who might provide that report. When the appellant entered the guilty pleas, a different lawyer, on instructions from Mr Blackley’s first lawyer, appeared and told the Judge that he was hopeful that a cultural report would be provided to the Court. The Judge said “I understand from counsel that a cultural report will be of much assistance to the Court at the sentencing on 14 February 2020. I therefore commend to the Legal Services Agency assistance with that report being provided”.6

[10]   For sentencing, and it is not clear why,  no cultural report was obtained.      Mr Blackley was concerned about this and says he asked his lawyer to request an adjournment on the day of sentencing to enable the report to be completed. He says

5      R v Mako [2000] 2 NZLR 170.

6      Legal Discussion before Judge Barkle transcript at page 4, line 14.

he does not believe that any such request was made to the Judge. The Judge completed the sentencing with no uplifts or discounts other than a guilty plea discount. She imposed an overall sentence of four years and six months, with two months for the drug possession to be served concurrently.

Reconsideration of sentence

[11]   The usual course is that the opportunity to produce a s 27 report should be taken at first instance. If it appears to the appellate court that the report may make a difference, the proper course is usually that the matter is remitted to the trial Judge for resentencing.7

[12]   In this case the sentencing followed a guilty plea rather than a trial. In addition, due to the fact that the sentencing Judge is not based in New Plymouth, it will be some time before the sentencing Judge is able to resentence Mr Blackley. The Crown notes that  sentencing  matters  are  already  adjourned  out  to  February 2021  in  the   New Plymouth District Court, so there is likely to be delay at least until then. Both Crown and the defendant submit that that delay would be undesirable and not in the interests of justice.

[13]   In Carroll v R, neither party wanted the Court to remit the matter back to the District Court and the report was admitted and the sentence was adjusted by the Court of Appeal.8 The Court did not specify any specific reasons beyond the parties did not wish for the matter to be remitted back to the lower court.

[14]   In my view, dealing with the matter today is the most appropriate manner in which to proceed. It will produce a timely outcome and it would be more expedient for the Court to deal with this matter now. In the circumstances, and particularly in view of counsels’ views, it is appropriate that I now turn to consider what the appropriate end sentence should be, having considered the cultural factors set out in the s 27 report.

7      Carroll v R [2019] NZCA 172. The Court of Appeal commented at [8] that “[t]he questions whether a cultural report justifies any allowance in the sentence, and if so how much, are best answered by the trial judge.”

8 At [8].

Application to adduce the s 27 report

[15]   Mr Blackley sought leave to adduce the report on the basis it was fresh evidence pursuant to r 20.16 of the High Court Rules 2016. He submitted that the report clearly identified pervasive and persistent social disadvantage and prolonged childhood abuse which impaired his choices and led to the offending. His mother was a drug user and his father was in jail for most of his childhood. His Māori heritage was rejected and discouraged. He was beaten, kicked out of schools, sexually abused by trusted family members and was raised in a life of crime and drugs.

[16]   Mr Blackley also expressed remorse and has sought a restorative justice meeting. He has expressed a willingness to undergo counselling for his childhood trauma and drug addiction.

[17]   The Crown notes that the report does contain credible evidence and it would likely have an impact on the end sentence. The Crown, however, noted that it was not fresh. At the same time, it does not strongly oppose its admission.

[18]The legal position is set out under r 20.16, which provides:

Further evidence

(1)Without leave, a party to an appeal may adduce further evidence on a question of fact if the evidence is necessary to determine an interlocutory application that relates to the appeal.

(2)In all other cases, a party to an appeal may adduce further evidence only with the leave of the court.

(3)The court may grant leave only if there are special reasons for hearing the evidence. An example of a special reason is that the evidence relates to matters that have arisen after the date of the decision appealed against and that are or may be relevant to the determination of the appeal.

(4)Further evidence under this rule must be given by affidavit, unless the court otherwise directs.

[19]   In this case the further evidence is adduced by affidavit, with Mr Blackley’s explanation as to circumstances that led  to  it  not  being  considered  by  the  District Court.

[20]   The Court of Appeal set out the principles for adducing fresh evidence on appeal in Mark v R, where it said:9

[16] The principles for assessing the admissibility of fresh evidence for appeals against conviction are now well established. There is no reason why different principles should be engaged where an appellant wishes to adduce fresh evidence for an appeal against sentence. Thus, if the fresh evidence is not credible it should not be admitted. If it is credible, an assessment needs to be made as to whether or not it could have been presented to the sentencing Court with reasonable diligence. If the evidence is both credible and fresh it should be admitted unless the appellate court is satisfied it would have had no effect on the sentence. If the evidence is credible but not fresh, the appellate court should assess its strength and its potential impact on the sentence. If the appellate court considers that the sentence could be manifestly excessive if the evidence is excluded, then it should be admitted notwithstanding that it is not fresh.

[21]   The appellant in Carroll v R sought to adduce a s 27 cultural report for the purposes of a sentence appeal on the basis that it warranted a discount.10 The Crown did not oppose the admission in that case and the Court accepted the information was material to the sentence because it sufficiently established a causal connection between the cultural circumstances and the offending and also pointed to good prospects of rehabilitation. Therefore, the Court admitted it.11

[22]   In this case, Mr Blackley seeks leave to appeal the cultural report for the same purpose as in Carroll v R.12 The Crown, as I have noted, while pointing out the evidence is not fresh, nevertheless does not press its opposition strongly.

9      Mark v R [2019] NZCA 121 at [16].

10     Carroll v R, above n 7, at [7].

11 At [11].

12     Carroll v R, above n 7.

[23]   In my view the report contains material that is relevant to sentence and provides a connection between the appellant’s background and the offending.

[24]By way of example I read an excerpt out of the report:13

There are some aspects of Christopher’s life that may have eaten away at his filter to the extent that a pattern of criminal and anti-social behaviour and many years of being in prison has been his lifestyle of choice for a very long time. Adverse childhood experiences including his father being in prison, the physical and emotional violence and deprivation experienced in his mother’s house as well as the sexual abuse at the hands of trusted people have dictated how he has chosen to live a life of crime and drug dependency since his early teens. These experiences have shaped who he is and how he responds to situations by resorting to what he knows best to mask what has been under the surface.

[25]   I consider that the report is credible and relevant to sentencing here. It will make a difference to the final sentence. In addition, while the reason for the report not being available to the District Court for sentencing in the first instance is unclear, there was an intention to obtain such a report recognised by the sentencing Judge. In those circumstances, in my view, the report should be admitted.

Sentence appeal

[26]   The sentence appeal is brought under s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. An appeal against sentence is an appeal against a discretion and therefore must only be allowed if the Court is satisfied that there has been (for any reason) an intrinsic error in the sentence imposed and that a different sentence should be imposed.14 The sentence must either be manifestly excessive or inappropriate if the appellate court is to interfere with the discretion.15 The focus is on the final sentence rather than the exact process by which it was reached and whether the sentence was in the available range.16 It was put in R v Peters as follows:17

As this Court has indicated on many occasions, the issue whether a sentence is manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate or inappropriate must be examined in terms of the sentence actually passed rather than the precise process by which it is reached. Thus, if a sentence might be the product of a

13     Mr Blackley’s cultural report at 14.

14     Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279; [2014] 3 NZLR 482.

15     Affleck v Police [2017] NZHC 3220 at [9].

16     Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15].

17     R v Peters CA12/03, 14 May 2003 at [13].

starting point which is itself manifestly excessive but is in the result ameliorated by allowances made for mitigating factors so as ultimately to be brought to a point of acceptability, this Court will be disinclined to intervene through concern over any particular component.

[27]   The appellant submits there was an error in the sentence because the s 27 report was not obtained for sentencing. Therefore, a miscarriage of justice occurred because facts that existed at the time of sentencing were not before the sentencing Court.    Ms Laird, for Mr Blackley, says the information is now available and relevant and will make a difference to the end sentence.

Cultural report summary

[28]   The cultural report notes the appellant has a son who is nearly 11 years of age. He has indicated he would like a relationship with his son and in addition he would be willing to do courses and counselling to achieve this and learn about parenting.

[29]   Mr Blackley says he is proud of his Māori heritage (through his grandmother being part Māori and part German) but indicates he knew nothing about being Māori or about his grandmother’s family. He says he would like to follow it up when he is released.

[30]   Mr Blackley had a difficult time at school. He was involved in stealing, accused of being disruptive, brandished a swiss army knife at a teacher, and threw a firework through a teacher’s window.

[31]   Mr Blackley said his mother was violent toward him and his siblings throughout his childhood and that sometimes they were not even given food. He was also abused on several occasions by people to whom he was entrusted. His father comments that Mr Blackley’s behaviour changed from that point. Mr Blackley is interested in doing counselling for this trauma.

[32]   Mr Blackley’s father had a troubled past himself. He spent many years in jail. However, he is now working as a drug and alcohol counsellor and says he has tried to help his son and wants to support him in the future.

[33]   The report says Mr Blackley was into marijuana and alcohol when he was not attending school, though neither of those substances appear to be issues currently. He said he first tried methamphetamine when he was 15 in order to stay awake when working nights at the freezing works. Mr Blackley became involved with new friends and got involved in burglaries. He had links to gangs because of the drugs, became more and more addicted, selling methamphetamine to fuel his drug addiction.

[34]   Mr Blackley did do a drug and alcohol treatment programme but did not benefit from it. He has thought about rehabilitation but was so hooked on drugs he never followed it up.

[35]   Mr Blackley says he also wants to participate in restorative justice and apologise to the victims. Moves were taken to set this up but it did not happen, presumably because the victims chose not to participate. He admits that he needs a huge amount of help to enable him to live in the community, but expresses a desire to fix himself.

[36]   Mr Blackley says of the offending that they had gone into the premises to play pokies. He said he wore a hoodie and glasses to look stylish and it was a surprise to him when his associate pulled out a gun and turned it into a robbery.

[37]   The report-writer says if Mr Blackley has the necessary motivation, commitment and patience to accept professional interventions and ongoing support, he will need to make significant adjustments to his previous lifestyle and behaviour patterns.

[38]   Ms Laird referred to Borell v Police, a High Court decision in which Duffy J allowed an application to adduce a cultural report on appeal.18 The offending involved an assault with intent to rob, failing to stop to ascertain injury, possession of an offensive weapon, operating a vehicle recklessly and failing to answer bail. The appellant and an associate attacked a victim at a petrol station and took his car. The appellant also had previous convictions for violent offending and some driving convictions. The original sentence was two years and eight months’ imprisonment.

18     Borell v Police [2019] NZHC 1483.

The s 27 report referred to an abusive childhood, neglect, family violence, and a transient upbringing leading to methamphetamine addiction. In addition, an older sister died and he became disconnected from his culture. The Judge said given “the social and cultural background from which Mr Borell has emerged it is to his credit he has not offended more often and more seriously than his criminal history reveals”.19 The Judge also said “Mr Borell has shown in the past that he is capable of leading a law-abiding life. I consider a sentence that places the emphasis on rehabilitation is warranted”.20 A discount of 30 per cent was granted in that case, bringing the appellant into the range for home detention.

[39]   Ms Laird also referred to Moses v R, where an adjournment was sought to admit a cultural report.21 That case involved methamphetamine  offending.  The Court of Appeal admitted the cultural report after the lower court had refused the adjournment, to allow the report to be put before it. The Court of Appeal gave a discount of 15 per cent after considering the cultural factors in the report. The report had discussed the appellant’s depression after the death of his mother, sports injuries preventing him from working, being abused as a child by wider family, introduction to methamphetamine, loss of Māori culture and systemic reforms which compounded existing deprivation. This led to gang membership and substance abuse.

[40]   Ms Laird, for Mr Blackley, also referred to Zhang v R, where the Court discussed systemic poverty from loss of land, culture and mana.22 They were identified as matters which may impair choice and diminish moral culpability.

[41]   In Solicitor-General v Heta, a 30 per cent discount for cultural factors was upheld.23 In the High Court, Whata J had noted “larger discounts tend to rely on identifying linkages between personal circumstances and the offending and thus the moral culpability of the offender”. This case involved stabbing a partner suspected of having an affair several times. The victim was hospitalised for two weeks. The Judge commented:

19     Borell v Police, above n 18, at [38].

20 At [40].

21     Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296.

22     Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507.

23     Solicitor-General v Heta [2018] NZHC 2453 at [63].

[10] … Ms Heta’s life reflects the significant post-colonial trauma and disruption of the cultural identity experienced by Māori whānau, hapu and iwi, where alcohol and poverty has resulted in offending of this type. … Ms Heta has lived a life that has involved drinking, physical and emotional violence that controlled her from childhood into her adulthood. … Ms Heta’s disconnection from her community and from her family are also noted as are references in the cultural report about poor role models, Ms Heta’s “fight for survival” during her childhood, and ongoing issues with alcohol and trust.

[42]   The appellant in this case submits the factors personal to him are similar to those in Borrell and Heta, therefore,  a  30 per cent  discount  should  be  allowed. Mr Blackley submits this should also take into account his remorse and efforts to make amends via restorative justice, as these were not recognised in the sentence.

[43]   The Crown also referred to Zhang, also noting the Court of Appeal in Carr v R said when “there is a link of the kind recognised in Zhang [the systemic poverty and deprivation] it would be wrong not to apply the provisions of the Act [namely ss 7 and 8 of the Sentencing Act]”.24

[44]   The Crown also submits that the personal factors in Carr v R are similar to this case. Carr involved several charges of aggravated robbery, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, dishonest use of a document, demanding with menaces, aggravated assault and theft attracting a sentence of 16 years. In that case a 15 per cent discount was allowed and the Court commented:

[63] … The cultural report prepared for Mr Carr described a disadvantaged life commencing when he was young. He grew up in poverty and started running away from home when his parents separated. As an adolescent, he associated with a criminal fraternity based on a North Shore “tinnie house” where others older than him and engaged in a life of crime were residing. He became affiliated to a youth gang, and subsequently to adult gangs. Peer group influences throughout his life were gang affiliated. The report writer identified a severe disconnection from Te Ao Māori, family violence, an incident of sexual abuse by a family member, an early exit from the education system and the absence of formal qualifications, affiliation with gangs, early entry to the criminal justice system, a first term of imprisonment at the age of 17 years, alcohol and drug abuse as well as methamphetamine addiction, and adult gang affiliation. The report also identified some potential for rehabilitation given Mr Carr’s acknowledgment of the need for him to change in behaviour particularly for the sake of his children. As in Moses v R, we consider this merits some recognition.

24     Carr v R [2020] NZCA 357 at [66].

[45]   The Crown also referred to Poi, in which the Court of Appeal discussed diminished culpability as a result of cultural factors and its impact on the purposes of deterrence and denunciation, noting an increased focus on rehabilitation may be necessary sometimes. Where an offender finds it difficult not to offend, however, this may increase the importance of community protection.25

[46]   The Crown says the continued pattern of offending here indicates community protection should be a dominant feature because the pattern indicates the appellant is one who finds it difficult to avoid offending. The longest break in the appellant’s offending was between 2011 and 2017, when he was serving a lengthy sentence for two charges of aggravated robbery.

[47]   The Crown submits it was the appellant’s own behaviour that caused him to leave school and that he has previously had opportunities to undertake drug and alcohol counselling while in custody. It says the appellant has had opportunities to make positive changes but has reverted back to offending, and submits that should temper the discount. The Crown submits that while there may be a causal connection, the appellant’s own choices, the seriousness of the offending and the appellant’s criminal history should temper the discount and submits a discount of 10 to a maximum of 15 per cent may be appropriate.

Analysis

[48]   In Borrell, the defendant had a lesser criminal history and demonstrated he had positive rehabilitation prospects. This is in contrast to Mr Blackley’s extensive criminal history and little evidence of successful rehabilitation prospects. While he says he is willing, there is nothing in his background to indicate that he will stick to it. What is not clear however, given the comments of the report-writer, is whether     Mr Blackley has reached a stage where there are factors in his life, including his son, which may positively support his path to rehabilitation.

[49]   In this case I also note a community protection factor must feature because Mr Blackley has a significant history of violent offending. Nevertheless, the cultural

25     Poi v R [2020] NZCA 312 at [27].

drivers of poverty and deprivation discussed in Zhang and applied in Heta do apply to Mr Blackley. The report indicates there has been a complete disconnection from his Māori culture. I note that the cultural connection is rather weaker than in some of the other cases referred to. The link is through his grandmother, who was part Māori. It perhaps is not as obviously a significant causal factor in the way that it was in Heta.

[50]The factors in Carroll however, are more analogous. The Court there noted:26

[9] … She identifies as Māori but does not know all her iwi affiliations. She was raised as the whāngai child of her maternal grandmother because both parents had substance abuse issues. She experienced a low standard of living, severe physical discipline, and sexual abuse at the hands of a partner of her grandmother. She had no early childhood education and was often truant at high school. Misconduct led to her changing schools and she withdrew from the education system after the fourth form with no formal qualifications. In 2006 she was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for driving offences and a spate of offences of dishonesty. She then settled into steady employment in a shearing gang and met the father of her children. Unfortunately he was deported as an overstayer in 2014 and this appears to have had a serious impact upon her. She became involved with the Mongrel Mob. Concern about her drug use led to her children being removed from her care in 2015.

[51]   The Court of Appeal allowed a discount for both the factors in the report and for time on EM bail of approximately 12 to 13 per cent (although I note the sentence involved was much longer than in the present case  – the final sentence there was   10 years and six months).

[52]   The factors set out in Carr which also resonate here are Mr Blackley’s severe disconnection from his Māori linkages, family violence, sexual abuse by a trusted person, an early exit from the education system, as well as the absence of formal qualifications, gang affiliations, early entry into the criminal justice system, drug abuse and methamphetamine addiction, and adult gang association.

[53]   I note, as I have said earlier, there is potential for rehabilitation in that there is an acknowledgment by Mr Blackley of the need to change for the sake of those around him and, in particular, the needs of his child. The child’s mother has presently excluded Mr Blackley from the boy’s life because of Mr Blackley’s use of drugs and regular imprisonment.

26     Carroll v R, above n 7, at [9].

[54]   Two recent Court of Appeal aggravated robbery sentence appeals are also relevant. In Woodstock v R, the appellant was conditioned to violence at a young age, was subject to abuse, had a poor home environment, and was expelled from school at

14.27   He had never been employed and did not have an alcohol or drug problem.  He

had no history of violent offending, he wished to participate in restorative justice, rehabilitative treatment and education. A discount of 15 per cent was granted for his social and economic deprivation and prospects for rehabilitation. In Court-Clausen, the appellant had a history of criminal offending, left school at 12, was physically and sexually abused by family members, had a lifelong drug addiction and impaired mental health, and expressed remorse.28 A discount of 15 per cent was also allowed for the personal and cultural mitigating factors.

[55]   Ms Laird urged me that a 25 per cent discount as allowed in Poi v R may be the more appropriate end of the range for a discount here.29 However, the 25 per cent discount allowed for the personal factors in that case and recognised not only the cultural issues but the diminution of culpability due to the significant cognitive impairment of Mr Poi. It also reflected his demonstrated willingness to engage in rehabilitation in prison. In addition, the Court was satisfied that the previous offending by Mr Poi had been generally low level and therefore, it considered community protection was not at the fore.

[56]   The comparison of those cases with Mr Blackley’s, as well as with each other, merely serves to underscore that each case turns on its own facts. In light of the cases discussed, I consider the cultural factors and expressions of remorse (although nothing tangible has emerged from them) do warrant a discount. I consider that discount should be at 15 per cent, which I view as a generous discount in the circumstances. I note it is at the top of the range suggested by the Crown. I consider the factors in this case also have similarity to the factors in Carr, Woodstock and Court-Clausen.

27     Woodstock v R [2020] NZCA 472.

28     Court-Clausen v R [2020] NZCA 488.

29     Poi v R, above n 25.

[57]   In the circumstances, a 15 per cent discount should be applied. It also follows that as that discount should be applied, the sentence imposed in the District Court was manifestly excessive. Having reached that conclusion, the appeal will be allowed.

Conclusion

[58]In conclusion:

(a)I allow the further evidence (the s 27 report) to be adduced.

(b)I allow a further discount of 15 per cent for the personal factors set out in the report.

[59]   The appeal is allowed. The sentence is therefore set aside. I impose an end sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment in substitution for that of the District Court.

Grice J

Solicitors:

Nina Laird, New Plymouth for the Appellant

C E Clarke, New Plymouth for the Respondent