Legal Research
Cases
Blackmore v R

Blackmore v R

Case [2014] NZCA 109 1 April 2014

Appeal

Sentencing

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Breach of Parole

Recidivism

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA591/2013
[2014] NZCA 109

BETWEEN	THOMAS WILLIAM ZANE BLACKMORE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	20 February 2014
Court:	Ellen France, MacKenzie and Mallon JJ
Counsel:	S J Ross for Appellant J M O’Sullivan for Respondent
Judgment:	1 April 2014 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
BThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
CThe sentence of five years and seven months is quashed and a sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment is substituted.
DThe minimum period of imprisonment of three years and eight months is quashed and a minimum period of imprisonment of one year and 11 months is substituted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Mallon J)

Introduction

Mr Blackmore pleaded guilty to 18 charges of dishonesty offending[1] and two charges of breach of release conditions.[2] He was sentenced to five years and seven months’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of three years and eight months. He appeals against his sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive. He also contends that a MPI was not required and, if it was required, the term imposed was manifestly excessive. The appeal was brought out of time due to an error. We grant the application for an extension of time to bring the appeal.

Background

[1]These included thirteen charges of obtaining by deception involving property or cash valued at over $1000 (Crimes Act 1961, ss 240(1)(a) and 241(a)); one charge of obtaining by deception involving property or cash of a value between $500 and $1000 (Crimes Act, ss 240(1)(a) and 241(b)); two charges of using a document for a pecuniary advantage (Crimes Act, s 228(b)); one charge of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle (Crimes Act, s 226(1)); and one charge of obtaining accommodation by fraud (Crimes Act, ss 240(1)(b) and 241(c)).

[2]Parole Act 2002, s 71.

The offending occurred between 2 June 2012 and 28 March 2013 in a number of places around New Zealand. It mainly involved Mr Blackmore approaching people and offering to carry out repairs on their vehicles and/or to sell the vehicles on their behalf. He provided written agreements using various assumed identities. Sometimes he used the cars as a “courtesy” car for another customer whose car he agreed to repair. He neither carried out the repairs nor sold the vehicles. In some instances he secured cash from his victims. In one instance he obtained cash by befriending a female mental health patient. He took the woman out of hospital for the day and helped himself to cash totalling $1,800 from her ATM bank card. In another instance he secured accommodation without paying for it.
In total there were 17 victims. The value of the property or cash taken from them ranged between $420.50 and $22,000 with a total value of $62,420.50. Many of the vehicles taken were subsequently recovered. The total loss in the end was $16,395.50.[3]
[3]This was recorded…

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 Blackmore v R

Details

AGLC: Blackmore v R [2014] NZCA 109
Case: [2014] NZCA 109
Decision Date: 1 April 2014 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal by Thomas William Zane Blackmore against his sentence for 18 charges of dishonesty and two charges of breach of release conditions. The key legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) was warranted. Blackmore contended that the sentence was excessively harsh and that the MPI was too long. The appeal was delayed due to an error, but the court granted an extension of time to proceed with the appeal.

The court assessed the starting point for the sentence, noting that the District Court had set a starting point of four years’ imprisonment. However, the court found that a starting point of around three and a half years would have been more appropriate, given the nature and extent of the offending. The court also found that the uplift of three and a half years for previous and parole offending was excessive, and that a one-year uplift would have been more proportionate. As a result, the court substituted a sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a discount of 25 per cent for Blackmore’s guilty plea.

Regarding the MPI, the court acknowledged that Blackmore’s history of reoffending justified the imposition of a MPI. However, the court found that the maximum MPI of two thirds of the sentence was not warranted in this case. Instead, the court substituted a MPI of 50 per cent of the sentence, equating to one year and 11 months.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the original sentence and substituted a sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of imprisonment of one year and 11 months. The court’s judgment provides guidance on the appropriate starting point and uplift for cases involving dishonesty offences committed by recidivist offenders.

Orders