Blance v The the Queen - [2022] NZHC 1040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2022-441-004

[2022] NZHC 1040

JACK LYALL BLANCE

v

THE QUEEN

Hearing: 12 May 2022

Counsel:

B Frendin for Appellant

M J R Blaschke for Crown

Judgment:

13 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] On 15 February 2022, Mr Jack Balance, aged 39, was sentenced to a term of three years nine months’ imprisonment following his conviction for two representative charges:1

(a)one of strangulation2; and

(b)one of assault on a person in a family relationship.3

1      R v Blance [2022] NZDC 3489.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 189A(b), maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A, maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.

BLANCE v R [2022] NZHC 1040 [13 May 2022]

[2] The sentence included a concurrent sentence of one years’ imprisonment in respect of the assault charge.

[3] Mr Blance now appeals his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. In particular, Mr Frendin, counsel for the appellant, submits that the sentencing Judge erred by failing to give adequate consideration to the principle of totality and by imposing uplifts that were too high.

[4] Mr Blaschke, counsel for the respondent, opposes the appeal, submitting that the Judge made no error and that the starting point and uplifts were well within range. On that basis, he submits the end sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Background

Factual background

[5] Mr Blance and the complainant were in a relationship for a few months but had known one another for over a decade. In the four-week period between 24 May 2021 and 17 June 2021, there were six incidents in which Mr Blance strangled or otherwise assaulted the complainant. These incidents occurred while Mr Blance was on parole for previous violent offending.

[6] In the first incident, Mr Blance strangled and punched the complainant after accusing her of contacting another man on Facebook. In the second incident, he accused her of stealing from him, threw her onto the floor and strangled her. The third incident resulted from an argument. Mr Blance repeatedly punched her body, made her lay down on her bed and then stood on her neck. He then injected himself with methamphetamine before demanding the complainant remove her hoodie and then injecting her with a substance against her will. Mr Blance denies he injected her with anything. In the fourth incident, Mr Blance threw the complainant against a wall in the shed while in the presence of her young daughters who witnessed the event. The fifth incident occurred after one of Mr Blance’s associates offered the complainant a cigarette. Mr Blance became jealous and punched her in the face, sat on her and verbally abused her. Later he tipped a can of bourbon over the complainant and punched her several more times. The sixth incident occurred when the complainant

refused to give Mr Blance her car keys. She was sitting on the couch and Mr Blance straddled her, grabbed…

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 Blance v The the Queen

Details

AGLC: Blance v The the Queen [2022] NZHC 1040
Case: [2022] NZHC 1040
Decision Date: 13 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jack Balance appeals his sentence for strangulation and assault of a former partner, arguing the sentence was manifestly excessive. The District Court Judge imposed a sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a starting point of four and a half years and uplifts of one year and six months. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing that the starting point and uplifts were appropriate and within range. The appeal is brought under s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and the focus is on whether the end sentence was within the available range. The sentencing Judge had regard to the principle of totality, which requires the court to consider whether there is proportionality between the totality of offending and the end sentence. The Court found that the starting point was within range, given the seriousness of the offending and the number of incidents captured by the representative charge. The Court also found that the uplifts were appropriate, reflecting the prolonged abuse, associated assaults, presence of children, and previous offending. The Court further found that the Judge had properly considered the principle of totality and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders