Green v The Queen - [2019] NZHC 2220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-199

[2019] NZHC 2220

BETWEEN
GLENN GREEN

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 2 September 2019

Appearances:

Appellant in person

H Steele for Respondent

Judgment:

5 September 2019

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 September 2019 at 3.30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

GREEN v R [2019] NZHC 2220 [5 September 2019]

[1] Mr Green pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of blackmail. On 16 May 2019, Judge C M Ryan sentenced him to 17 and a half months imprisonment.1 Mr Green does not appeal against that sentence. He appeals, however, against several release conditions the Judge imposed. These were:

(a)A condition prohibiting Mr Green from entering any internet café, public library or place of similar business where he could gain access to internet capable devices without prior written approval from a probation officer.

(b)A condition requiring Mr Green to submit to electronical monitoring using GPS technology as directed by a probation officer to monitor his compliance with any conditions relating to his whereabouts.

(c)A condition prohibiting Mr Green from undertaking any employment or training, paid or unpaid, without the prior written approval of a probation officer.

[2] In order to understand the reasons underlying the imposition of the release conditions, and the arguments in support of and in opposition to the appeal, it is necessary to set out the background to Mr Green’s present offending as well as his criminal history.

The present offending

[3] Mr Green pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This recorded that the victim of his offending was the Chief Executive Officer of a prominent American company based in Los Angeles. On 19 March 2018, Mr Green called the victim’s workplace and spoke to the victim’s executive assistant. He told this person that he had in his possession information that would be of interest to an American newspaper (the Los Angeles Times) and a magazine (People)regarding the victim’s personal life, including details of an extramarital affair in which he was allegedly engaged. Mr Green told the victim’s assistant he would release the

1 R v Green [2019] NZDC 9117.

information, including photographs, to these media outlets unless the victim made a payment to him.

[4] The victim then telephoned the number Mr Green provided. During this conversation Mr Green repeated his threats and told the victim he needed to pay him a sum of money to avoid the information being released to media outlets. The victim then blocked Mr Green’s mobile phone number from his cellphone.

[5] Over the next six days Mr Green used a different telephone number to send 24 text messages to the victim and to leave two voicemail recordings on the victim’s cellphone. These communications were in broadly similar terms to what Mr Green had said to the victim when he telephoned him on…

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 Green v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Green v The Queen [2019] NZHC 2220
Case: [2019] NZHC 2220
Decision Date: 5 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Glenn Green appealed against the sentence and several release conditions imposed on him by Judge C M Ryan in the District Court. Green pleaded guilty to blackmail and was sentenced to 17 and a half months imprisonment, but he appealed against the release conditions imposed by the Judge. The conditions were: (a) prohibiting Green from entering any internet café, public library or place of similar business where he could gain access to internet capable devices without prior written approval from a probation officer; (b) requiring Green to submit to electronical monitoring using GPS technology to monitor his compliance with any conditions relating to his whereabouts; and (c) prohibiting Green from undertaking any employment or training, paid or unpaid, without the prior written approval of a probation officer. The court found that the condition prohibiting Green from entering certain places was proportionate and balanced in response to the risk that Green poses of offending in the future. The court also found that GPS monitoring was necessary to ensure compliance with the restriction on entering public places where the ability to gain access to internet capable devices was present. The court found that the employment condition was appropriate, but it should be left to prospective employers to seek such information as they may require about Green's past before they employ him. If they are not sufficiently concerned to make enquiries about previous convictions, Green should not be required to disclose them. The appeal against sentence was dismissed subject to those remarks.

Orders