Blair v The Queen - [2020] NZHC 2801

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-463-101

CRI-2020-463-102 [2020] NZHC 2801

BETWEEN
DANIEL BLAIR

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 9 October 2020 (via AVL/VMR)

Counsel:

S R Lack for Appellant

S J Revell for Respondent

Judgment:

23 October 2020

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 October 2020 at 4:30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Pollett Legal Ltd (Tauranga) for Respondent

BLAIR v R [2020] NZHC 2801 [23 October 2020]

Introduction

[1] On 31 August 2020, Judge TR Ingram sentenced Mr Blair to three years and four months’ imprisonment on 16 charges to which he had pleaded guilty.1 Mr Blair now appeals the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

[2] Judge Ingram also disqualified Mr Blair from driving for a period of two years and six months. Mr Blair appeals the disqualification period as being manifestly excessive.

[3] I must allow the appeal if I identify an error in the sentence such that a different sentence should be imposed. If I find that Mr Blair’s sentence is manifestly excessive then I will reduce it appropriately.

Background

The charges

[4]The charges on which Mr Blair was sentenced are:

No. Offence date Charge Maximum penalty

1 10 June 2019 Burglary 10 years’ imprisonment

2 14 June 2019 Presented a pistol
3 months’ imprisonment;

$1,000 fine

3 14 June 2019 Found in an enclosed yard
3 months’ imprisonment;

$2,000 fine

4 17 June 2019 Unlawful possession of a firearm 3 years imprisonment; $4,000 fine

5 17 June 2019
Unlawful possession of

ammunition

3 years’ imprisonment, $4,000

fine

6 17 June 2019 Possession of Class B controlled drug
3 months’ imprisonment; $500

fine

7 17 June 2019
Possession of Class C

controlled drug

3 months’ imprisonment; $500

fine

8 17 June 2019 Possession of a methamphetamine pipe
1 year’s imprisonment; $500

fine

9 17 June 2019
Possession of a

methamphetamine pipe

1 year’s imprisonment; $500

fine

10 17 June 2019 Unlawful possession of explosive
4 years’ imprisonment; $5,000

fine

1 R v Blair [2020] NZDC 17705.

11
8 October

2019
Dangerous driving
3 months’ imprisonment;

6 months’ disqualification;

$4,500 fine

12
21 October

2019
Dangerous driving
3 months’ imprisonment;

6 months’ disqualification;

$4,500 fine

13
21 October

2019
Failed to stop for red and blue flashing lights
1 year’s disqualification;

$10,000 fine

15
22 October

2019
Dangerous driving
3 months’ imprisonment;

6 months’ disqualification;

$4,500 fine

16
22 October

2019
Failed to stop for red and blue flashing lights
1 year’s disqualification;

$10,000 fine

17
22 October

2019

Unlawful possession of

firearm²

4 years’ imprisonment; $5,000

fine

[5]The summary of facts gives details of the offending:

Charge 1 – Burglary

[6] At about 10 am on 10 June 2019, Mr Blair and a male friend entered a house in Te Puke while an occupant was taking a shower. Mr Blair told the occupant to get out of the shower and get dressed before…

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 Blair v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Blair v The Queen [2020] NZHC 2801
Case: [2020] NZHC 2801
Decision Date: 23 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Blair appeals against his sentence for multiple criminal charges, arguing that the sentence is manifestly excessive. The High Court considers whether the starting point was appropriately calculated, taking into account the totality of Mr Blair’s offending, and whether the discounts applied were sufficient. The Court also considers the length of the driving disqualification period. The Crown argues that the starting point was appropriate, the totality of the offending was taken into account, and the disqualification period is proportionate. The Court finds that the starting point was at the lower end of the range available to the sentencing Judge, and that the sentence is not manifestly excessive. The Court also finds that the disqualification period is not excessive as it needs to extend beyond Mr Blair’s likely release from prison and reflect the context of the offending for which the disqualification was imposed. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders