R v Kerr - [2016] NZHC 416

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF REFERENCES TO RESTRAINT ORDERS AND THE OTHER PROCEEDINGS AT [40], [57] AND [67]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-092-011253

[2016] NZHC 416

THE QUEEN

v

JEREMY HAMISH KERR

Hearing: 23 February 2016, 10 March 2016

Appearances:

C Gordon QC and Z Hamill for Crown J Billington QC for Defendant

Judgment:

10 March 2016

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J ON DISPUTED FACT HEARING

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland
Anthony Harper, Auckland

Copyto: J Billington QC, Auckland D Hughes, Auckland

R v KERR [2016] NZHC 416 [10 March 2016]

Introduction

[1] Jeremy Hamish Kerr has pleaded guilty to two counts of blackmail. The charges relate to letters he sent in November 2014 to the Chief Executive Officers of Fonterra and Federated Farmers. Mr Kerr enclosed samples of 1080 poison blended with New Zealand dairy infant formula with the letters. The letters threatened that if, after 27 March 2015 1080 was still in use in New Zealand then several New Zealand infant and other formula with traces of 1080 would be released into the retail chain in the Chinese and one other market.

[2]Section 237 of the Crimes Act 1961 provides:

237 Blackmail

(1)Every one commits blackmail who threatens, expressly or by implication, to make any accusation against any person (whether living or dead), to disclose something about any person (whether living or dead), or to cause serious damage to property or endanger the safety of any person with intent—

(a)to cause the person to whom the threat is made to act in accordance with the will of the person making the threat; and

(b)to obtain any benefit or to cause loss to any other person.

(2)Every one who acts in the manner described in subsection (1) is guilty of blackmail, even though that person believes that he or she is entitled to the benefit or to cause the loss, unless the making of the threat is, in the circumstances, a reasonable and proper means for effecting his or her purpose.

(3)In this section and in section 239, benefit means any benefit, pecuniary advantage, privilege, property, service, or valuable consideration.

[3]Mr Kerr was charged in each case with:

On or about 26 November 2014, at Auckland threatened expressly to endanger the safety of any person, namely infants who ingest dairy infant formula, by releasing infant milk formula into the Chinese market and one other retail market, contaminated with traces of sodium fluoroacetate (1080), with intent to cause [Federated Farmers/Fonterra], to act in accordance with the will of Jeremy Hamish Kerr, the person making the threat, to cause [Federated Farmers/Fonterra] to pressure the New Zealand Government to stop the use of sodium fluoracetate (1080) in New Zealand, and thereby to obtain a benefit.

[4] For present purposes the relevant elements of the two counts to which Mr Kerr has pleaded guilty are:

(a)the express threat;

(b)to endanger the safety of infants;

(c)with intent to cause Fonterra and Federated Farmers to act in accordance with his will, namely…

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 Kerr

Details

AGLC: R v Kerr [2016] NZHC 416
Case: [2016] NZHC 416
Decision Date: 10 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kerr involved Jeremy Hamish Kerr who pleaded guilty to blackmail charges related to letters sent to the CEOs of Fonterra and Federated Farmers, threatening to contaminate infant formula with 1080 poison if the use of 1080 in New Zealand was not ceased by a specified date. Kerr was charged with intending to cause serious harm to infants by releasing contaminated formula into the market, aiming to pressure Fonterra and Federated Farmers to influence government policy on the use of 1080. Kerr admitted sending the letters but contested the Crown's claim that his motivation was financial gain. Kerr argued his actions were driven by concerns over the indiscriminate use of 1080. The court had to determine whether Kerr's motivation was financial or based on policy concerns. The Crown argued Kerr was financially motivated, a position supported by evidence of Kerr's financial stress and potential financial benefits from a ban on 1080. The court found that Kerr was indeed under financial pressure and was aware of the potential financial benefits from a ban on 1080, concluding that his actions were motivated by a desire for financial gain. This finding was based on Kerr's financial situation, his comments indicating a potential benefit from a 1080 ban, and the nature of the blackmail threats themselves. The court ruled that Kerr intended to obtain financial benefit from the blackmail letters, and he will be sentenced accordingly.

Orders