Collinge v The Queen - [2017] NZHC 2891

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CRI 2017-485-52 [2017] NZHC 2891

BETWEEN
BLAIN BOND COLLINGE

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 21 November 2017

Counsel:

V C Nisbet for Appellant
A B Richards for Respondent

Judgment:

23 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Mr Collinge appeals an effective sentence of two years seven months’ imprisonment on a raft of offences.1 The basis of the appeal is that insufficient credit was given for his remorse and rehabilitative efforts. The aim of the appeal is to reduce the sentence to one where home detention is a possible outcome. The underlying proposition is that Mr Collinge’s circumstances make a non-custodial sentence the proper outcome both for Mr Collinge’s sake and that of society generally.

[2] Mr Collinge is a methamphetamine addict. Until 2014 he had a trade and was in a stable relationship. Work saw him relocate overseas and it was there he became addicted. He returned to New Zealand and his addiction caused the collapse of his
personal circumstances and led to offending.

1 R v Collinge [2017] NZDC 21281.

COLLINGE v R [2017] NZHC 2891 [23 November 2017]

[3] In 2015 he was given what is generally accepted as a lenient sentence of home detention in relation to a series of offences including five charges of burglary, and offering to supply methamphetamine, ecstasy and cannabis. That sentencing took place 14 months after his arrest and in the interim Mr Collinge had made great strides. He had completed addiction courses, and along with his supportive parents was developing a methamphetamine rehabilitation centre. His father has brought that to fruition. On that sentencing occasion a starting point of four and a half years’ was reduced to two years’ imprisonment, before being replaced by home detention.

[4] It appears matters progressed for some time as everyone hoped they might.

Mr Collinge had set up a business as a fitness trainer and was engaged in the sport of power lifting. He was also employed at the rehabilitation centre as a fitness instructor. He was (and is) in a stable relationship and from the outside appeared to be doing well. However, in the middle of 2016 he relapsed and unbeknown to his partner and parents began taking methamphetamine again.

[5] There followed a spate of offending similar to but more serious than the 2014 offending. That offending will be described shortly but to complete the narrative
Mr Collinge was arrested and in August 2016 admitted to electronically monitored (EM) bail. While on bail he again undertook treatment for drug and gambling addictions, and is presently a mentor at the rehabilitation facility his father runs.

[6] Mr Collinge and his partner have very recently become parents, and like his parents, Mr Collinge’s partner remains supportive of him.

[7] It was against that background sentencing occurred.

Present offending and sentencing

[8] The numerous charges involve property and drug offending.

[9] The property offending. There…

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 Collinge v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Collinge v The Queen [2017] NZHC 2891
Case: [2017] NZHC 2891
Decision Date: 23 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Blain Bond Collinge has appealed against an effective sentence of two years and seven months' imprisonment for a series of drug and property related offences. The appeal is grounded on the contention that insufficient credit was given for his remorse and rehabilitative efforts. The central argument is that a non-custodial sentence would be more appropriate for Mr Collinge's circumstances and for the benefit of society.

The legal issues before the court were whether the judge erred in the allocation of discounts for mitigating factors, and whether the sentence imposed was too severe given the appellant's remorse and rehabilitative efforts. The appeal aimed to reduce the sentence to a level where home detention could be considered, arguing that such an outcome would be better for both Mr Collinge and society.

Simon France J, in dismissing the appeal, held that while the sentence was merciful, the nature and seriousness of Mr Collinge's offending, particularly while under the influence of his addiction, necessitated an imprisonment sentence. The court noted that the starting point of five and a half years had already been significantly reduced, and the various discounts applied were within the bounds of available authority. The judge also emphasised the importance of equal treatment of offenders and the established principles of sentencing for drug offences, which prioritise deterrence. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.

Orders