R v Darbyshire - [2013] NZHC 2804

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2013-085-4818 [2013] NZHC 2804

THE QUEEN

v

JADE ROBERT DARBYSHIRE

Hearing: 24 October 2013

Counsel: P K Feltham for Crown
V C Nisbet for Accused

Sentence: 24 October 2013

SENTENCE OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1] Mr Darbyshire you having pleaded guilty to a charge of blackmail and you are now for sentence. The sentence arises when you pleaded guilty after a sentence indication.

[2] The facts are as follows. After a relationship ended between yourself and another woman you continued to seek sexual relations from her. She refused. In April 2013 she received a number of text messages from you saying that you would distribute explicit photos of her throughout the Wellington area including her place of work if she did not have sex with you. You sent her approximately 40 messages threatening this action and saying that you had the photos and you were ready to
distribute them. The complainant complained to the police and you were arrested.

R v DARBYSHIRE [2013] NZHC 2804 [24 October 2013]

[3] The pre-sentence report notes that you are 34 years of age and live with your partner and daughter and step son in the Wellington area. You are currently in employment. You have been previously convicted of common assault relating to the same victim. The report notes that home detention would not be possible because of your employment but community detention would be possible but there may be ongoing problems with your current partner but I will refer and deal with those in a moment.

[4] The Crown in their submissions both previously at the sentence indication and today stress that:

(a) the fact that you were in a relationship with the complainant and threatened blackmail was a breach of trust of an intimacy;

(b)secondly, a threat involved the distribution of explicit photos to the complainant’s work place such a threat would have been particularly troubling to the complainant. You made persistent demands with over
40 texts and the complainant was particularly vulnerable given the control that you had over her life because of the possession of the photographs.

[5] I take into account the written submissions that your counsel made at the sentence indication hearing. He stressed that there were no threats of physical violence nor did the threats involve any demands of money and in the end stresses that the threats were not carried out and that that confirmed your intention not to ever carry out the threats.

[6] I am satisfied that the Crown have fairly identified the appropriate aggravating features in this case. Your blackmail had the potential to cause extreme embarrassment to the victim. The attempt to blackmail was to force the victim to have sexual relations against her will. And finally, the blackmail was based on a serious breach of trust arising from your previous relationship. But I acknowledge on the other hand that the photographs were not distributed.

[7] I think an appropriate starting sentence…

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 Darbyshire

Details

AGLC: R v Darbyshire [2013] NZHC 2804
Case: [2013] NZHC 2804
Decision Date: 24 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Jade Robert Darbyshire involved a defendant who had pleaded guilty to blackmail. The court, presided over by Justice Ronald Young, was tasked with sentencing Darbyshire. The key issue was determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the severity of the crime against the defendant's circumstances, including his guilty plea and the lack of physical harm or financial demands involved in the offence. Darbyshire had sent over 40 threatening text messages to a former partner, demanding sexual relations in exchange for not distributing explicit photos, which constituted a serious breach of trust given their past relationship.

The court weighed various factors in arriving at a sentence. It considered the aggravating aspects, such as the breach of trust, the nature of the threats, and the vulnerability of the victim. However, it also acknowledged mitigating factors, such as the absence of physical violence, the lack of monetary demands, and the fact that the threats were not carried out. Ultimately, Justice Young determined that an appropriate starting sentence would be 13 months' imprisonment, but this was reduced due to Darbyshire's guilty plea. The court opted for community detention over home detention to avoid disrupting Darbyshire's employment, although it noted concerns about his recent aggressive behaviour and the suitability of his home environment for community detention.

After reviewing submissions and letters from Darbyshire and his partner, the court imposed a sentence of five months’ community detention. The court expressed concerns about Darbyshire’s conduct and warned that any further incidents could result in the cancellation of his community detention, potentially leading to imprisonment. The sentence included specific curfew hours and a designated address for community detention. Additionally, while the court cancelled the suppression of Darbyshire's name, it permanently suppressed the contents of the pre-sentence report from publication.

Orders