Blandford v Police - [2019] NZHC 3112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2019-416-20

CRI-2019-416-22 [2019] NZHC 3112

BETWEEN FREDERICK GEORGE DICK BLANDFORD
Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 26 November 2019

Counsel:

A M Simperingham and Dr K C Leung for Appellant A V Bryant for Respondent

Judgment:

27 November 2019

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1]Mr Blandford appeals a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment.1

Offending

[2] There are two sets of offending underlying the sentence. The most serious are charges of assault with a weapon,2 and intimidation.3 This was a domestic-related incident where Mr Blandford, armed with a dinner knife, pursued the victim outside. She ended up on her knees with him holding the knife to the side of her neck.

1      R v Blandford [2019] NZDC 19056 [The Substitute Sentencing Decision], see also R v Blandford
[2019] NZDC 12622 [The Sentencing Decision].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 202C; maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(e); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a
$2,000 fine.

BLANDFORD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3112 [27 November 2019]

[3] The incident was observed by a woman in a stationary car. Mr Blandford got into his own vehicle and drove to where she was. He parked alongside so as to prevent the woman from opening her car door. He “eyeballed” her.

[4] The second set of charges are drug related. Mr Blandford was growing cannabis in a modified room at the address where he was living. There were 14 mature plants and 16 seedlings. The charge is cultivation, to which he pleaded guilty.4 It is not alleged the growing was other than for personal use. Mr Blandford was also charged with possessing pipes able to be used for smoking methamphetamine.5

[5] Mr Blandford has previous drug convictions. In 2016 he was sentenced to six months’ community detention for cultivating cannabis. In 2009 he was sentenced to 50 hours’ community work for the same offence. In 2006 he was convicted and discharged on a charge of possessing cannabis. In 2000 he was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for possessing cannabis and cannabis oil for supply, and manufacturing the cannabis oil.

Sentencing history

[6] The sentencing Judge allocated a starting point of 10 months’ imprisonment for the drug offending, and 14 months for the violence offending.6 He then made a totality adjustment to reduce the overall starting point to 20 months. There was then a two-month uplift for past offending. Recognising guilty pleas on the drug offending and intimidation charge, there was a two-month deduction, thereby returning the total to 20 months.

[7] The Judge had in mind that home detention would be the outcome. So he further reduced the sentence by four months, being a one-for-one credit for time spent in custody (2.5 months) and 1.5 months’ credit for three months of EM bail.7 The final total of 16 months’ imprisonment was converted to a sentence of eight…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Blandford v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NZHC 3112
Decision Date: 27 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Blandford v Police concerns an appeal against a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment. The appellant, Frederick George Dick Blandford, was convicted of assault with a weapon, intimidation, cultivating cannabis, possessing pipes for smoking methamphetamine, and breaching home detention conditions. The appeal focused on the starting points assigned to the various charges and the adjustments made to the sentence. The court was required to determine whether the starting points and adjustments were appropriate and whether the final sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the starting point for the most serious charges, assault with a weapon and intimidation, was within the appropriate range, taking into account similar cases and the domestic context of the offending. However, the starting point for the cannabis cultivation charge was considered manifestly excessive. The court accepted that the cannabis cultivation was for personal use and did not warrant a lengthy prison sentence. The court also found that the District Court had made errors in the way the sentence was constructed, including mislabelling the seriousness of the home detention breach charge and giving credit for time already served, which should not have been considered in the sentencing exercise.

The court allowed the appeal, quashed all existing sentences, and imposed new sentences for each charge. The sentences for the assault with a weapon, intimidation, possessing pipes for smoking methamphetamine, cultivating cannabis, and breaching home detention conditions were set at 15 months', one month's, one month's, one month's, and one month's imprisonment, respectively, with all sentences running concurrently.

Orders