Blakelock v Police - [2019] NZHC 2487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2019-409-000100

[2019] NZHC 2487

BETWEEN
ALFONSO LOUIS BLAKELOCK

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Defendant

Hearing: 26 September 2019

Appearances:

B Shamy and K Gray for Appellant J H Whitcombe for Respondent

Judgment:

1 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 October 2019 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date 1 October 2019

Introduction

[1] Alfonso Blakelock, the appellant, pleaded guilty to a charge of assault with intent to injure. Judge Couch refused to grant him a discharge without conviction,1 and instead sentenced him to 150 hours’ community work and 12 months’ supervision.2

1 Police v Blakelock [2019] NZDC 9978.
2 Police v Blakelock [2019] NZDC 13805.

BLAKELOCK v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2487 [1 October 2019]

[2] The appellant appeals the refusal to grant a discharge without conviction on the grounds that the Judge erred in his interpretation of the Immigration Act 2009 when determining the consequences of conviction, and that the circumstances warranted a decision to discharge him without conviction.

Facts

[3] In the early morning of 16 November 2018, the appellant was working as a security guard at the strip club, Calendar Girls. He asked the victim and an associate of the victim to leave the premises, and escorted them to the top of the flight of stairs. The victim was moving slowly and grabbed onto the stair handrail. The appellant punched the victim once in the face then pushed him down the stairs. He followed the victim to a small landing, kneed him in the chest, punched him in the face, and then pushed him into a wall. He punched the victim twice more in the body then was briefly restrained by the victim’s associate. The victim grabbed the appellant around the waist, and the appellant threw him halfway down the second set of stairs. He walked down and pushed the victim to the bottom of the stairs with his foot. The appellant punched the victim once more and picked him up before being restrained by another staff member.

[4] The victim suffered cuts and bruising to his face and chest from the assault as well as headaches and dizziness. In explanation, the appellant stated he had been having a bad day and that the victim and his associate just kept going.

District Court decision

[5] Judge Couch assessed the gravity of the offending as moderately serious. The assault was prolonged, it involved repeated blows including to the victim’s head, and it appeared the appellant would have continued to assault the victim had he not been eventually restrained. The Judge did not consider provocation was a mitigating factor. He took into account the appellant’s circumstances, namely that shortly before the incident the appellant’s grandfather had been diagnosed with cancer and the appellant had gone through a relationship break up, but did not accept that…

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 Blakelock v Police

Details

AGLC: Blakelock v Police [2019] NZHC 2487
Case: [2019] NZHC 2487
Decision Date: 1 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alfonso Louis Blakelock, the appellant, sought to appeal the decision of the District Court, which refused to grant him a discharge without conviction following his guilty plea to a charge of assault with intent to injure. The District Court had sentenced him to 150 hours of community work and 12 months of supervision. The central issue in the appeal was whether the District Court Judge erred in his interpretation of the Immigration Act 2009 when determining the consequences of the conviction, and whether these consequences warranted a discharge without conviction. The High Court had to decide whether the District Court’s decision to deny the discharge without conviction was justified under the Sentencing Act 2002.

The Court began by noting that the appellant’s offending was properly assessed as moderately serious, taking into account the prolonged nature of the assault and the repeated blows to the victim. The Court then examined the consequences of the conviction, particularly focusing on the appellant’s potential liability for deportation under the Immigration Act. While the Court acknowledged that the appellant would become liable for deportation, it did not consider this to be an immediate consequence. Instead, the Court reasoned that deportation would only follow if the appellant committed another offence within the specified period. This was seen as a proper and reasonable approach, akin to the situation in Carroll v Police, where the threat of deportation was also considered in the context of future offending. The Court further noted that the appellant's potential loss of his security guard's licence, while significant, did not elevate the consequences to a level that would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against the District Court's refusal to grant a discharge without conviction was dismissed.

Orders