Haggerty v The the Queen - [2022] NZHC 1019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2022-412-1 CRI-2022-412-2

[2022] NZHC 1019

BETWEEN
JASON PAUL HAGGERTY

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 9 May 2022

Appearances:

L Andersen QC for Appellant P A Norman for Respondent

Judgment:

12 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 May 2022 at 3 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

HAGGERTY v R [2022] NZHC 1019 [12 May 2022]

[1] Mr Jayden Haggerty was convicted of a charge of blackmail1 following a judge-alone trial in the Dunedin District Court.2 He was sentenced to four months’ community detention, 12 months’ intensive supervision and ordered to pay reparation of $1,200.3 Mr Haggerty now appeals his conviction for blackmail on the basis the trial Judge erred in finding the ingredients of the charge proved.

Background

[2] The complainant met Mr Haggerty in January 2020 at a local gym where she worked part-time. A relationship developed which largely involved both parties communicating with each other electronically using text messaging, Snapchat and Instagram. Their relationship was one primarily conducted remotely but they would see each other at the gym and once went out for dinner. During the course of this relationship they sent each other explicit pictures of themselves.

[3] The relationship broke down as a result of the complainant learning details of Mr Haggerty’s domestic situation that she had not previously been aware. At some stage in the week prior to the communications that gave rise to the blackmail charge, the complainant spoke to her manager about Mr Haggerty and he was trespassed from the gym. It is not entirely clear when Mr Haggerty was trespassed, other than it was before the first communication from Mr Haggerty to the complainant which featured in the evidence. This was sent via Instagram on 19 June 2020 at 9.36 pm. The message read:

U need to talk to me about why iv been trespassed from the gym! If u don’t u leave me with no chose, u know what Iv got I don’t wanna do that but u
leave me with No option[.]

[4] The complainant subsequently “unfollowed” him on Instagram. On Saturday 20 June, Mr Haggerty messaged the complainant at 8.03 pm:

Mr Haggerty (H): Now u fucking blocked me on insta as well! Well fuck you then! I was going to write you a letter saying good bye but now I won’t even waste my fucking time!

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 237 and 238 — maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Mr Haggerty had earlier pleaded guilty to unrelated charges of assault on a person in a family relationship and intentionally exposing a young person to indecent material.
3      R v Haggerty [2022] NZDC 1236.

Complainant (C): I haven’t blocked you? H: Deleted me?
H: I could see your posts earlier and now I can’t

C: I haven’t blocked you jayden? And I…

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 Haggerty v The the Queen

Details

AGLC: Haggerty v The the Queen [2022] NZHC 1019
Case: [2022] NZHC 1019
Decision Date: 12 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Haggerty, appealed his conviction for blackmail, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding the elements of the charge proved. The court examined whether Mr Haggerty had made threats with the intention of causing the complainant to act against her will and to obtain a benefit from her. The court considered the evidence, including the text messages exchanged between Mr Haggerty and the complainant. The court found that Mr Haggerty's intent was to pressure the complainant to act in accordance with his will by threatening to disclose intimate images of her, and that he sought to obtain the benefit of continuing their relationship and regaining access to her social media accounts. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion, and dismissed the appeal against conviction. The sentence appeal was also dismissed as it would only be pursued if the conviction appeal was successful.

The court's decision was based on the evidence presented, including the text messages exchanged between Mr Haggerty and the complainant. The court found that Mr Haggerty's intent was to pressure the complainant to act in accordance with his will by threatening to disclose intimate images of her, and that he sought to obtain the benefit of continuing their relationship and regaining access to her social media accounts. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion, and dismissed the appeal against conviction. The sentence appeal was also dismissed as it would only be pursued if the conviction appeal was successful.

Orders