R v Darrell - [2013] NZHC 1860

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-012-003168 [2013] NZHC 1860

REGINA

v

JAMIE NEIL DARRELL

Hearing: 25 July 2013

Appearances: P A Currie for Crown
PHB Hall QC for Mr Darrell

Judgment: 25 July 2013

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PANCKHURST J

[1] You are for sentence this morning upon charges of blackmail and a composite charge of publishing objectionable images contrary to the Films, Video and Publications Classification Act 1993. The offending occurred on 28 May 2012.

[2] The background was that in 2007 you met the complainant when you were 15 and she was only 14 years of age. A friendship developed which had an online dimension. In 2008, the complainant supplied to you via the internet explicit photographs of herself. Some four years later, and at a time when the friendship was no longer active, you somewhat out of the blue sent her an email and also a skype message on 28 May 2012, to which you attached examples of the naked images you had received some years earlier. You also said to the complainant that she had 20 minutes within which to upload more, and up to date, images. If she did not do so you threatened to place the existing images on the internet together with links which
would enable her school friends and others to access them.

REGINA v DARRELL [2013] NZHC 1860 [25 July 2013]

[3] It is of course that threat, that she provide further images or else you would expose the old ones, which is the basis of the blackmail charge. There was no response from the complainant. You proceeded to implement the threat by uploading the existing nine naked images with the necessary links for others to access them. You sent a second skype message effectively telling her that hundreds of her friends would be in a position to access the images and you added “enjoy your life and remember how much simpler this could have been”.

[4] In the meantime, the complainant had reported the threat to her father. He went to the police and an investigation was underway. He sent you a message to the effect that the police were involved and he also supplied the police investigation number. Fortunately, at about 1.00 am on 29 May you cancelled the profile page which you had created, thereby of course removing the images from circulation.

[5] When spoken to by the police, you had no comment to make.

[6] On 11 June, Mr Hall sought on your behalf a sentence indication. I indicated to you that a sentence of imprisonment was unlikely, that on account of your age and some other factors that I anticipated the imposition of a community based sentence, but its exact shape and form would depend upon the information available today.

[7] You are 19 years of age, you turn 20 in November. You were 18 in May of last year, at the time of the relevant events. This offending for which you are…

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 Darrell

Details

AGLC: R v Darrell [2013] NZHC 1860
Case: [2013] NZHC 1860
Decision Date: 25 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, the defendant, Jamie Neil Darrell, was sentenced on charges of blackmail and publishing objectionable images under the Films, Video and Publications Classification Act 1993. The charges stemmed from events that occurred on 28 May 2012, when the defendant, who was 18 at the time, sent the complainant explicit photographs he had received from her four years earlier, threatening to publish them online unless she uploaded more recent images. The defendant carried out his threat by uploading the images and links, which were subsequently removed before the police could intervene.

The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering his age, the nature of the offending, and his recent turnaround in lifestyle and behaviour. The defendant had committed a series of other offences between July 2012 and February 2013, but his pre-sentence report indicated a significant change in his circumstances. He had reconnected with his parents, was engaged in unpaid work that would lead to a qualification in horticulture and botany, and had a stable living situation. The court weighed these factors against the seriousness of the blackmail and the vulnerability of the complainant.

The court found that the defendant’s immaturity and recent positive changes warranted a second chance. While acknowledging the gravity of the offences, the court opted for a community-based sentence to reflect the defendant's potential for rehabilitation. The defendant was sentenced to 240 hours of community work and 12 months of supervision, with conditions to attend alcohol and drug counselling, and other treatment programs as directed by the probation service. An order was also made for the destruction of the indecent images.

Orders