R v Bloor - [2014] NZHC 2086

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2013-009-006028 [2014] NZHC 2086

THE QUEEN

v

NIGEL JAMES BLOOR

Hearing: 29 August 2014

Counsel:

JE Rielly for the Crown
CM Ruane for the Defendant

Judgment:

29 August 2014

SENTENCING REMARKS OF ASHER J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Napier. CM Ruane, Christchurch.

R v BLOOR [2014] NZHC 2086 [29 August 2014]

[1] Nigel James Bloor, following a trial you were found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. There had also been a charge of blackmail relating to the period following the sexual violation, but the jury found you not guilty on that count. The maximum sentence for sexual violation is 20 years’ imprisonment.

[2] You had been in a relationship with the victim between September 2010 and February 2012. You were not living together but would stay with each other on occasions. On the weekend in question you had gone to the victim’s home. You had an active sexual relationship. Through the relationship featuring vaginal intercourse, the victim had indicated to you that she did not wish to participate in anal intercourse.

[3] On the afternoon of 19 February 2012 you both went to the victim’s bedroom and commenced having consensual sexual intercourse. At a point you placed lubricant on her and proceeded to penetrate her anally. The victim gave evidence that she immediately protested to you asking you to stop, saying it hurt and that you then pulled away. However, you then recommenced taking hold of her and holding her face down on the bed with her head in the pillow. You proceeded then to penetrate her anally for a period of time before ceasing. Throughout that period she was loudly protesting telling you to stop and saying that you were hurting her.

[4] The victim said that following the sexual violation she crawled to the bathroom to clean herself up. She was in pain and bleeding. In the days that followed she was in pain and most uncomfortable and discovered she had anal tears.

[5] The victim has provided a victim impact statement. She considers that as a consequence of this incident you have caused her long term problems in her anus and genitals and contributed to incontinence. She will need reconstructive surgery. She considers your act has caused her life to have changed and that it has very significantly affected her in every way, including her work. She has not been able to work fulltime since the event. Her emotional well-being and attitude to others has changed significantly.

[6] Ms Rielly, for the Crown, submits that this offending warrants a starting point of eight years’ imprisonment. She accepted, when I put it to her, that a discount for good character was appropriate, and accepts that 10 per cent could be a fair deduction. She submits that there should be no discount for remorse.

[7] Mr Ruane, for you, submits that a starting point of approximately seven years would be more appropriate,…

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 Bloor

Details

AGLC: R v Bloor [2014] NZHC 2086
Case: [2014] NZHC 2086
Decision Date: 29 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bloor, the defendant, Nigel James Bloor, was convicted by a jury of one count of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, having been in a relationship with the victim between September 2010 and February 2012. The court heard that the victim had indicated to Bloor that she did not wish to participate in anal intercourse, but Bloor proceeded to engage in anal penetration despite the victim's protests, causing her severe pain and bleeding. The victim also experienced long-term problems as a result of the incident.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate starting point for sentencing and the mitigating factors that should be considered in determining the final sentence. The Crown submitted that an eight-year starting point was appropriate, while the defence argued for a seven-year starting point. The court also considered whether any discount should be applied for good character and remorse.

In delivering the sentencing remarks, the court first considered the starting point for sentencing. The court noted that there were aggravating factors present, including the violence of the sexual act and the residual damage to the victim. However, the court also found that the seriousness of the offending fell at the boundary between rape band one and rape band two, and that the aggravating factors were of a low or moderate degree. The court determined that an eight-year starting point was appropriate.

The court then considered the mitigating factors personal to Bloor. The court found that Bloor had no previous convictions and had shown good character through his life up to this point. The court also noted that Bloor had expressed regret and remorse for his actions, although he had not fully accepted the victim's account of the events. The court determined that a discount of nine months should be applied, resulting in a final sentence of seven years and three months' imprisonment.

The court ordered that Bloor be sentenced to seven years and three months' imprisonment on the count of sexual violation.

Orders