Blondell v Police - [2012] NZHC 533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2012-412-3 [2012] NZHC 533

JOANNE ELIZABETH BLONDELL
Appellant
v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: 9 March 2012

Appearances: T Cadogan for the appellant
R D Smith for the respondent

Judgment: 23 March 2012

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Ms Blondell, pleaded guilty in the District Court at Alexandra to charges of assault with a weapon, theft, disorderly conduct and use of a document for a pecuniary advantage. She was sentenced on 14 December 2011 by Judge O’Driscoll to 11 months’ imprisonment. Ms Blondell now appeals against her sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive.

The offending

[2] Ms Blondell’s assault offending relates to an incident which occurred in the early hours of 31 July 2011. At 12:27am, Ms Blondell and a female associate went

BLONDELL v POLICE HC DUN CRI-2012-412-3 [23 March 2012]

to the victim’s house. The victim did not know Ms Blondell. Some days earlier, the victim’s partner had been arrested in an Alexandra medical centre for assaulting an elderly man and woman, and Ms Blondell sought to confront him about that incident. On the day he sentenced Ms Blondell, the Judge had earlier dealt with that offender.

[3] The victim’s partner let Ms Blondell into the house, where she began to remonstrate with them about the assault on the elderly couple. The victim’s partner moved Ms Blondell outside where a fight broke out between Ms Blondell’s associate and the victim. Ms Blondell picked up a tyre iron which she had found on the victim’s property and struck the victim across the back of the head. The victim suffered a cut to the back of the head, which bled profusely and medical treatment was required.

[4] In addition to this offending Ms Blondell pleaded guilty to using two cheques with insufficient funds, theft of petrol, and behaving in a disorderly manner in an incident where a can of drink was thrown over a driver.

The offender

[5] Ms Blondell is 30 years old. She has three children and lives with them and two friends in Alexandra. She has some 35 previous convictions, including for violence and dishonesty.

The sentencing

[6] In a careful sentencing exercise, the Judge identified the lead offence as the assault with a weapon conviction, the other offences being treated as aggravating. He considered the primary aggravating factor of the offending was premeditation. As he put it:1

... you would not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that going to that address in the early hours of the morning to confront the victim was highly likely to result in violence.

1 Police v Blondell DC Alexandra CRI-2011-002-000432, 14 December 2011 at [7].

[7] Having said that, the Judge acknowledged that Ms Blondell had not taken the tyre iron with her.

[8] The blow to the head was a further aggravating factor, which had serious physical and emotional effects on the victim. Noting that the appellant faced five charges…

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 Blondell v Police

Details

AGLC: Blondell v Police [2012] NZHC 533
Case: [2012] NZHC 533
Decision Date: 23 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Judge Clifford presided over the appeal of Joanne Elizabeth Blondell against her sentence of 11 months' imprisonment for assault with a weapon, theft, disorderly conduct, and use of a document for a pecuniary advantage. The District Court had found Ms. Blondell guilty of these charges, which stemmed from an incident where she assaulted a victim with a tyre iron, leading to a cut that required medical treatment. The appeal centred on the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the arguments of both parties, focusing on the appropriate starting point and the mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the severity of the injuries inflicted, the premeditation of the assault, and the appellant's criminal history. The appellant's counsel argued that the starting point of 15 months was too high, given the minor nature of the head injury and the fact that Ms. Blondell did not premeditate the use of a weapon. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the starting point was justified due to the likelihood of violence given the timing and nature of the confrontation, and that a cumulative sentence for the multiple offences could have resulted in a higher starting point.

The court found that the injuries inflicted were more moderate than minor, and that the premeditated nature of the assault, coupled with the appellant's criminal history, warranted the 15-month starting point. The court rejected the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, noting that the discount given for the guilty plea and the mitigating factor of the appellant's role as a mother was appropriate. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range available to the sentencing judge and dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the original sentence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of 11 months' imprisonment would stand. The court emphasised that the nature of the violent offending, combined with the appellant's previous convictions and the fact that the offending occurred while she was on bail, justified the imposition of a custodial sentence.

Orders