Blake v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 2408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-077-000660

[2021] NZHC 2408

BETWEEN
MEEGAN BLAKE

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 14 September 2021 (by VMR)

Appearances:

R Raukawa for Appellant S J Bird for Crown

Judgment:

14 September 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Sentence appeal

Solicitors: Tui Law Limited
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

BLAKE v R [2021] NZHC 2408 [14 September 2021]

[1] Meegan Blake pleaded guilty to one charge of driving while disqualified and four charges of obtaining by deception involving $7,800. On 5 August 2021 Judge D J McDonald sentenced her to 18 months’ imprisonment with standard and special release conditions.1

[2]Ms Blake appeals on the basis the sentence is manifestly excessive.

[3] On 11 September 2020 Ms Blake was stopped because the car she was driving had a damaged window. She admitted being a disqualified driver.

[4] The four charges of fraud arose from Ms Blake listing a twin apartment in Tauranga for holiday home lets. Various emails were used but always one cell number, which was Ms Blake’s number, was provided as a contact. Ms Blake would then tell interested people she was no longer using the website and directed them to put the money into an account she provided. On 6 March 2021 she was contacted by the first victim. The figure of $1,800 was agreed. That money was paid into a bank account of an elderly male who Ms Blake knew. She then went and withdrew the money less
$100. The same type of scam was used by Ms Blake on 7 March for $2,750, on 9 March for $1,550, and on 11 March for $1,700. All the money except for the last
$1,700 was paid and was lost by the victims. In total $6,100 was lost, although the fraud involved $7,800.

[5] The Judge considered the nature of the fraud was serious. He noted that more and more people relied on internet banking, internet shopping and booked their holidays on websites online. Ms Blake by her actions had shown how easy it was to defraud people although she was never going to get away with it because she had used the bank account of someone she knew who gave the Police her identity and of course she had used her own contact cell phone number.

[6] In arriving at the end sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment the Judge took a starting point of 20 months for the fraud offending and considered an uplift of two months’ imprisonment to be appropriate for the separate offence of driving whilst disqualified. The Judge then imposed a two month uplift for Ms Blake’s previous

1 Police v Blake [2021] NZDC 16150.

similar offending. From that adjusted starting point of 24 months the Judge allowed a full credit of 25 per cent for Ms Blake’s guilty plea.

[7] That led to the end sentence of 18 months which the Judge structured as 16 months’ imprisonment on the fraud…

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 Blake v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Blake v The Queen [2021] NZHC 2408
Case: [2021] NZHC 2408
Decision Date: 14 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Meegan Blake, the appellant, pleaded guilty to one charge of driving while disqualified and four charges of obtaining by deception. The total amount obtained through deception was $7,800, with actual losses to victims amounting to $6,100. The respondent, the Crown, argued that the sentence imposed by Judge D J McDonald was appropriate given the nature of the offending. The appellant, however, contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Specifically, the appellant argued that the starting point of 20 months for the fraud offending was too high, and that the judge should have taken into account her offer of reparation. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the arguments made by both parties and reviewed the facts of the case. The court noted that the appellant's culpability was moderate, given the unsophisticated nature of the offending, but that it did involve planning. The court also noted that the starting point of 20 months for the fraud offending was within the range available to the sentencing judge. The court further noted that the appellant did not take issue with the various uplifts and discounts for the plea. The court held that the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court's decision was that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the starting point of 20 months for the fraud offending was within the range available to the sentencing judge, and that the various uplifts and discounts for the plea were appropriate. The court also found that the appellant was not in a realistic position to pay reparation at the time of sentencing. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed.

Orders