R v Hulme - [2012] NZHC 1766

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIM.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2012-009-004727 [2012] NZHC 1766

REGINA

v

STEWART WILLIAM HULME

Hearing: 19 July 2012

Appearances: J J McCall for the Prisoner
D L Elsmore for the Crown

Judgment: 19 July 2012

SENTENCE OF HON. JUSTICE FRENCH

[1] Stewart William Hulme, following a guilty plea, you appear for sentence this morning on one count of blackmail. The maximum penalty for that offence is
14 years imprisonment.

Facts of the offending

[2] You and your victim have never met but only had contact through text messages and phone calls.

R V HULME HC CHCH CRI-2012-009-004727 [19 July 2012]

[3] The contact between you started in 2007, when she was only 12 and you were in your late 50s.

[4] She sent you a text intended for someone else by mistake. You replied, giving a false name and saying that you were 21. She responded saying she was 16.

[5] The texting continued on a regular basis for approximately three years.

[6] During these text exchanges, you asked the victim to become your girlfriend and she agreed. Shortly after the text messages first began, you sent her a photograph of a penis and asked her to send you explicit sexual pictures of her. She thought this was disgusting and stopped contacting you. However, the texting resumed, you promising to buy her things and topping up her phone every couple of days. Eventually, she was persuaded by you to send some photographs. Initially, they were of her fully clothed. But in 2009, you started to pressure her to provide photographs of her naked, wearing a bra and G-strings, or inserting things into her vagina. The victim was too embarrassed and ashamed to tell anyone. She did not know how to stop the contact, and it did continue for a very long time, with you wanting a picture of her every day.

[7] In September 2010, you ended contact saying, falsely, that you had to work in

Australia. However, for some reason which remains unexplained, on 1 September

2011, you reinitiated contact via text message.

[8] On 22 September 2011, you text her asking for her to send new pictures of herself. However, she no longer wanted anything to do with you and ignored your messages.

[9] The following month, on 7 October 2011, you sent her a text saying you had found some old pictures of her. You threatened to post these photographs on Facebook and send them to her mother if she did not send you new sexual photographs of herself. Wisely, she ignored this text and reported the threat to police.

[10] Two days later, on 9 October 2011, you again text her, stating you had set up a Facebook page and put her old photographs under her name on the Facebook page.

[11] The following day, 10 October 2011, you advised her you had been working on the Facebook site and had made…

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 Hulme

Details

AGLC: R v Hulme [2012] NZHC 1766
Case: [2012] NZHC 1766
Decision Date: 19 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hulme involved Stewart William Hulme, who was sentenced for blackmail. Hulme had engaged in a prolonged exchange of text messages with a 12-year-old victim, which included inappropriate sexual requests and the dissemination of explicit images. This conduct escalated to blackmail when Hulme threatened to share the victim's explicit images online unless she complied with his demands. Hulme pleaded guilty to the charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for blackmail and the considerations to be taken into account under the Sentencing Act 2002. The court had to balance the purposes of sentencing, including deterrence and denunciation, with mitigating factors such as Hulme's lack of prior convictions, his guilty plea, and his offer of amends. The court also considered the significant impact on the victim's mental health and emotional wellbeing.

The court determined that, while imprisonment was usually appropriate for blackmail, the circumstances of this case warranted a sentence of home detention. The aggravating factors included the victim's vulnerability, Hulme's persistence, and the serious effect on the victim. Mitigating factors included Hulme's good character, his early guilty plea, and his offer of reparations. The court sentenced Hulme to six months of home detention, with specific conditions to prevent further offending and to address his behaviour. Additionally, Hulme was ordered to make a payment of $2,000 to the victim for emotional harm, and an order was made prohibiting the publication of the victim's name and identifying details to protect her privacy.

In summary, the court balanced the need for a punitive response to the crime with the potential for rehabilitation, resulting in a sentence that aims to address Hulme's offending behaviour while also protecting the community and the victim.

Orders