R v Blackler - [2018] NZHC 830

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2016-012-002732

[2018] NZHC 830

THE QUEEN

v

JASON KARL BLACKLER

Hearing: 27 April 2018

Appearances:

R P Bates and R D Smith for the Crown M A Stevens for the Defendant

Judgment:

27 April 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

[1] Jason Karl Blackler you are here for sentence today, having been found guilty by a jury of the manslaughter of Alan Fahey.

[2] The events which gave rise to this charge occurred in October 2016. At the time you were 47, and you had moved into Mr Fahey’s home in 174 Brockville Road, Dunedin, as a flatmate, although you also spent time in the home of your fiancée.

[3] During the afternoon of Tuesday 25 October 2016, you and Mr Fahey began drinking together in the lounge of his home. The drinking continued on into the evening, and involved quantities of beer and virtually an entire one litre bottle of a strong spirit, known as Jägermeister.

R v BLACKLER [2018] NZHC 830 [27 April 2018]

[4] At some point in the evening Mr Fahey angered you when he made sexual and disparaging comments about your terminally ill sister. You then attacked Mr Fahey in the lounge and struck him multiple times to the head and neck area with your fists.

[5] I am satisfied that the evidence of blood spattering indicates that at least one, if not more of these blows was delivered while Mr Fahey was lying on the ground.

[6] I note that the Crown raises the possibility that you subdued the victim by strangling him with a singlet. The evidence to support this is that the singlet was found stretched out on the ground underneath the position of Mr Fahey’s neck, and he had a fractured hyoid bone in his throat. However, as Mrs Stevens points out, the medical evidence did not support the suggestion that the singlet had been used as a ligature as there was no sign of petechial haemorrhaging on Mr Fahey nor any visible bruising on his neck. I have therefore not assumed that an attempt at strangulation comprises part of the facts for sentencing.

[7] In addition to the fractured hyoid bone, the victim suffered numerous facial injuries. These were of sufficient severity to render Mr Fahey almost unrecognisable, something you yourself said about his injuries to your fiancée on the phone that night. As the jury found, it was as a result of this attack, in combination with the victim’s pre-existing poor coronary health, that the victim died.

[8] After the attack, you made some attempt to clean the blood off yourself and then you rang your fiancée disclosing what you believed you had done. At that stage your concern was to cover your tracks and avoid detection. For example, you suggested burning the house down.

[9] Your fiancée’s teenage daughter arranged a taxi to collect you and take you back to her…

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 R v Blackler

Details

AGLC: R v Blackler [2018] NZHC 830
Case: [2018] NZHC 830
Decision Date: 27 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Blackler involved the defendant, Jason Karl Blackler, who was convicted of the manslaughter of Alan Fahey. The incident occurred in October 2016 when Blackler, after drinking with Fahey, attacked him in his home, leading to Fahey's death due to injuries exacerbated by his pre-existing poor health. The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for manslaughter and the factors influencing culpability and harm.

The court considered various aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the sentence. Aggravating factors included the extreme violence, the targeting of the victim's head, the severity of the injuries, the victim's vulnerability, and the abuse of trust. Mitigating factors considered were the level of provocation and intoxication, though intoxication was not deemed a mitigating factor. The court assessed the case against the principles of accountability, responsibility, victim interests, community protection, and deterrence.

The court ultimately decided on a starting point for sentencing within the five to 10-year range, acknowledging the multiple blows and severe disfigurement but also considering the lack of a direct connection between the violence and the fatal outcome due to the victim's undisclosed health issues. Comparing the case with others involving similar violence but unintended death, the court found R v Turi to be most relevant, adjusting the starting point by 18 months to account for the victim's death. The court further adjusted the sentence by 12 months for Blackler's prior violent history.

The final sentence imposed was seven years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of three and a half years, reflecting the court's aim to deter, denounce, and hold Blackler accountable for his actions while protecting the community.

Orders