R v Blom - [2017] NZHC 827

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS/VICTIM/CONNECTED PERSON(S) PURSUANT TO S 202
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-044-1785 [2017] NZHC 827

THE QUEEN

v

MICHELLE BLOM

CAMERON TE HAU KARETI TAUTAU HAKEKE

Hearing: 28 April 2017

Counsel

B Dickey and H Steele for Crown
JA Kincade for Blom
G Newell for Hakeke

Judgment:

28 April 2017

[REDACTED] SENTENCING NOTES OF WHATA J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v BLOM AND HAKEKE [2017] NZHC 827 [28 April 2017]

[1] Before I get underway, I just confirm that there are suppression orders in relation to N and in relation to a Mr E, permanent suppression orders. All other interim orders are otherwise at an end.

[2] Mr Hakeke, Ms Blom, please stand. Mr Hakeke, you have been found guilty on one charge of kidnapping and one charge of assault with a weapon. This offending took place in April 2016. Ms Blom, you were found guilty of one charge of kidnapping. This offending took place in May 2016. You both face a maximum sentence on a lead charge of kidnapping of 14 years imprisonment.

[3] Your offending formed part of two separate episodes of serious abuse levelled at N, the victim. In order to properly understand your offending, it is necessary to set out the full circumstances.

[4] Before I go further, I wish to acknowledge the victims of this offending. It must have been a harrowing experience for N, causing her great physical and emotional distress. I also know that she and her family have been and continue to be deeply affected by it.

[5] I also wish to apologise to the victim and to her family for the additional delay in sentencing the co-offenders in this matter. Unfortunately, the reports required for their sentencing were not completed in time.

[6] Mr Hakeke and Ms Blom, you may sit until I ask you to stand again.

The facts

[7] The victim, N, was 19 years old at the time of the offending.

[8] She was known to both of you through your association with Ms Jones, a co- offender. Mr Hakeke, you also came to know N as you both worked as prostitutes and N lived with you for a time.

[9] In early 2016, Ms Jones became very angry with N because she had heard that N had slept with her boyfriend and reported her to CYFS. Ms Torrance, another

of your co-offenders and known to Ms Jones as “mumma”, was also angry with N. She thought that N had stolen some of her recently deceased daughter’s jewellery. This set the scene for the events that followed.

The April kidnapping

[10] Turning then to you, Mr Hakeke, late in the evening of 22 April 2016, you lured N to your address in Green Bay under the pretence of wanting to buy methamphetamine. Ms Jones and Ms Torrance were waiting at the address, and upon N arriving they attacked…

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 Blom

Details

AGLC: R v Blom [2017] NZHC 827
Case: [2017] NZHC 827
Decision Date: 28 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the High Court of New Zealand sentenced Cameron Te Hau Kareti Tautau Hakeke and Michelle Blom for their roles in the kidnapping and assault of a victim, N. The defendants were found guilty of their respective charges, and the court imposed sentences of two years and five months and two years and nine months imprisonment, respectively. The court considered various factors in arriving at these sentences, including the purposes and principles of sentencing, the gravity of the offending, and mitigating factors. The court also considered the role each defendant played in the offending, with Hakeke receiving a higher starting point due to his involvement in cutting the victim's hair and assaulting her, while Blom received a discount for her remorse and prospects of rehabilitation. The court emphasised that it was sentencing the defendants only for their own offending and not for the acts of others.

Orders