Bulman v The Queen - [2017] NZHC 3282

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2017-454-8

[2017] NZHC 3282

BETWEEN
SCOTT BULMAN

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 4 July 2017

Counsel:

S Winter for Appellant M Cooke for Respondent

Judgment:

21 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] On 27 April, Judge Rowe sentenced Mr Bulman to 26 months’ imprisonment for arson following a guilty plea.1 He had set fire to his neighbour’s flat because he was having sexual urges towards young children, and sought to avoid acting on these by being arrested and sent to prison. He appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge did not sufficiently discount for mental health, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence, and that intensive supervision should instead be imposed.

[2] On 4 July, I heard the appeal and on 6 July I issued a minute requesting further information on what treatment would be available to Mr Bulman in prison, on parole, or as part of a sentence of intensive supervision. A further PAC report was provided in response to my minute, advising that there would be a 12 week wait for Mr Bulman to see a Corrections Psychologist. The writer also recommended an assessment with an organisation such as Wellstop, an updated neuropsychological report, and an ACC rehabilitation assessment. Mr Winter therefore sought an

1 R v Bulman [2017] NZDC 8657.

BULMAN v THE QUEEN [2017] NZHC 3282 [21 December 2017]

adjournment to enable these assessments to be undertaken. This was granted by Cull J on 18 August.

[3] That information has now been provided, with the exception of the Wellstop assessment. I have also been provided with an updated PAC report dated 17 November, which assimilates information from the other three reports. Since then, I have been unwell, which regrettably has caused further delay.

[4] As a consequence of these delays, and given that Mr Bulman is now eligible for parole, it is impossible to treat this as an orthodox sentence appeal. The task is more complex and nuanced than that. In some ways, the intervening months have meant that the initial arguments are superseded. My task is to identify an approach to this appeal which produces a safe and just outcome for Mr Bulman in light of what we now know; not to technically assess the usual considerations. As a result, much of this judgment is a summary of the various reports.

Facts

The current offending

[5] On 22 January 2017, Mr Bulman was at home. He lived in one of three connected flats. He went to a neighbouring flat that he knew to be unoccupied. He opened a window, went inside and set fire to the curtains throughout the flat. He then left the flat and watched the fire progress. When the fire service arrived to extinguish the fire, Mr Bulman approached a fire officer and told him that he had lit the fire. He was arrested by police. He told police that he lit the fire because he was having…

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 Bulman v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bulman v The Queen [2017] NZHC 3282
Case: [2017] NZHC 3282
Decision Date: 21 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott Bulman appeals against his sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment for arson, arguing it is manifestly excessive and that intensive supervision should have been imposed instead. Bulman set fire to his neighbour’s flat to avoid acting on his sexual urges towards young children. The sentencing judge declined to impose intensive supervision, instead urging the Parole Board to review the psychological report and its suggestions. Bulman submits that the sentence is manifestly excessive and that a discount for mental health of more than one third is permissible. He argues the reports indicate the best prospects for managing his difficulties are outside of prison and that intensive supervision should have been imposed. The Crown submits that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the recent reports confirm imprisonment was appropriate. The appeal judge finds that while the sentence was manifestly excessive, the appeal is not the appropriate mechanism to address this issue given Bulman’s comfort in prison and the lack of statutory basis to order his release while a plan is developed. The better-calibrated tools available to the Parole Board are more suited to this task. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders