Bolt v Police - [2021] NZHC 1966

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2021-425-10

[2021] NZHC 1966

BETWEEN
DION HUGH BOLT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 27 July 2021

Appearances:

S G Vidal for Appellant

R T Nye-Wood for Respondent

Judgment:

30 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 July 2021 at 4 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

BOLT v POLICE [2021] NZHC 1966 [30 July 2021]

[1] Dion Bolt was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment by Judge Walker in the Invercargill District Court following a sentence indication on a raft of charges that included threatening to kill, wilful damage, arson, assault with a blunt instrument, unlawfully taking a motor vehicle and reckless driving.1 He was also sentenced for the unlawful possession of a pistol and ammunition.

[2] He appeals his sentence on the basis the length of the prison term was manifestly excessive. He does not take issue with the indicated sentence itself but with what he submitted was the inadequate discount extended for personal mitigating circumstances from that indicated starting point.

Background facts

The February offending

[3] In the early hours of 18 February 2020, Mr Bolt was at the victim’s home in Mangakino. He and the victim had been in a relationship for some three years. While the victim was in bed with the couple’s son, Mr Bolt entered her room uninvited and refused to leave. He took her phone and became angry when he realised she had changed her passwords. He yelled at her and threatened to punch her in the head. He said he wanted to kick her head in and accused her of infidelity. About an hour later Mr Bolt left, but not before whispering to her that he would return.

[4] That evening, Mr Bolt drove back to the house. He remained in the car and, as the victim approached him, he yelled at her, accusing her of cheating on him. Mr Bolt then got out of the car holding a pocket knife. He told the victim, “Fuck I’m going to kill you” and lunged at her while making a stabbing motion. He told the victim he had a loaded gun in the backseat of his car “for her”. Mr Bolt later messaged the victim he would kill her that night.

[5] As a result of these events, Mr Bolt was charged with speaking threateningly2 and threatening to kill.3

1      Police v Bolt [2021] NZDC 8054.
2      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a) – maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment or a
$2,000 fine.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 306 – maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

May offending

[6] On 8 May 2020, Mr Bolt knocked on the door of a man’s house near Whakamaru. When the man responded, Mr Bolt asked for his name and if he wanted to “score”. The man declined and Mr…

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 Bolt v Police

Details

AGLC: Bolt v Police [2021] NZHC 1966
Case: [2021] NZHC 1966
Decision Date: 30 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dion Hugh Bolt appeals his sentence on the basis that the length of the prison term was manifestly excessive. The appeal focuses on the extent of the discount afforded for personal mitigating factors, including his background, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts. The High Court considers whether the District Court erred in its assessment of these factors when arriving at a 15 per cent reduction.

The Court observes that there is conflicting information regarding the nature and level of Mr Bolt’s remorse. The restorative justice process with his partner resulted in a positive and constructive outcome. However, the pre-sentence report demonstrated that Mr Bolt continues to lack insight. He demonstrated a tendency to justify his offending and, in relation to some of the charges, took a “victim-blaming stance”. The Court finds that the sentencing Judge gave proper credit to Mr Bolt for his attendance at the restorative justice conferences, and that the five per cent discount is not realistically challenged as inadequate.

The Court notes that Mr Bolt’s background has marked parallels with that of the offender in Carr v R. The Court of Appeal concluded that an appropriate discount would be 15 per cent. Having reviewed the information provided by the s 27 report, there is a clear link between Mr Bolt’s experiences of violence, deprivation, normalisation of alcohol, drugs and crime during his formative years and his offending. However, the Court finds that the District Court Judge did not err in his assessment of these factors when arriving at a 15 per cent reduction.

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

The final orders are that the appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders