R v Le Frantz - [2013] NZHC 94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-042-001790 [2013] NZHC 94

THE QUEEN

v

JODIE MAREE LE FRANTZ

Hearing: 7 February 2013

Counsel: J M Webber for Crown
S J Zindel for Prisoner

Judgment: 7 February 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J [Review of sentence]

Introduction

[1] The Crown has applied under s 80F of the Sentencing Act 2002 for an order cancelling Ms LeFrantz’s sentence of home detention and substituting that sentence with one of imprisonment.

Background

[2] Ms Le Frantz was sentenced to nine months’ home detention on

22 November 2012. That sentence was imposed after she pleaded guilty to a charge

R V LE FRANTZ HC NEL CRI-2012-042-001790 [7 February 2013]

of blackmail.[1] The offending involved her writing a letter to a victim, threatening to expose his infidelity unless he paid her $16,000. Ms Le Frantz also sent the victim two threatening text messages.

[1] R v Le Frantz [2012] NZHC 3149

[3] In sentencing Ms Le Frantz, Mackenzie J recognised her struggles with drug addiction. His Honour settled upon a starting point of a prison sentence in the range of two years. However, his Honour determined that home detention would serve Ms Le Frantz’s rehabilitative needs better than a period of imprisonment. When sentencing Ms Le Frantz MacKenzie J warned Ms Le Frantz that if she did not comply with the conditions attached to the sentence of home detention she risked the prospect of her home detention sentence being cancelled and substituted with a prison sentence.

[4] The conditions imposed upon Ms Le Frantz’s sentence of home detention were designed to force her to address her drug addiction problems. The conditions included requirements that:

(1) she reside at 28A Abraham Heights, Nelson;

(2)she not purchase, possess or consume alcohol or illicit drugs for the duration of her sentence;

(3)she undergo any testing or assessments required by the probation service to monitor her compliance with the condition that she abstain from purchasing, possessing or using illicit drugs; and

(4)she attend and complete drug and alcohol counselling or treatment programmes specified by the probation service.

Breach of conditions

[5] The Crown alleges that Ms Le Frantz has committed nine breaches of conditions of her home detention. Some of those breaches can be fairly categorised

as being comparatively minor breaches. Examples of such breaches include failing to get written verification that she collected her groceries and leaving her address 12 minutes early to go to a supermarket. More serious breaches of the conditions of Ms Le Frantz’s home detention include:

(1) consuming Ritalin, a Class B controlled drug; (2) consuming cannabis; and
(3)being absent without excuse on 8 January 2013 when she failed to attend a drug and alcohol centre.

[6] Ms Le Frantz has accepted the most serious of the breaches alleged by the

Crown.

Should the sentence of home detention be cancelled?

[7] The sentence of home detention was imposed against the background of a pre-sentence report which emphasised doubts about Ms Le Frantz’s ability…

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 Le Frantz

Details

AGLC: R v Le Frantz [2013] NZHC 94
Case: [2013] NZHC 94
Decision Date: 7 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Le Frantz concerns an application by the Crown to cancel the defendant's sentence of home detention and substitute it with imprisonment. The defendant, Jodie Maree Le Frantz, was sentenced to nine months of home detention following her guilty plea to blackmail. The Crown sought to have this sentence cancelled due to multiple breaches, including drug use and failure to comply with the conditions of her sentence. The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of home detention should be cancelled and replaced with a prison sentence, and if so, what the appropriate substitute sentence would be.

The court considered the nature and seriousness of the breaches committed by Ms Le Frantz, as well as the original sentencing considerations. The court noted that Ms Le Frantz had ignored the warnings given at the time of sentencing, relapsing into drug use and failing to comply with the conditions of her home detention. The court found that the breaches were serious enough to warrant the cancellation of the home detention sentence. When determining the substitute sentence, the court considered the seriousness of the original offence, the need for accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and the principle of imposing the least restrictive sentence possible. Given these considerations, and the fact that Ms Le Frantz had not served six months and two weeks of her original sentence, the court decided that an eight-month imprisonment sentence was appropriate.

The court cancelled the original sentence of nine months' home detention and imposed an eight-month imprisonment sentence in substitution. The court emphasised the need for Ms Le Frantz to take her rehabilitation and the conditions of her sentence seriously, and warned that further breaches could result in additional penalties. The final order was that Ms Le Frantz would serve eight months in prison, reflecting the court's determination that imprisonment was necessary to address her breaches and ensure the objectives of her sentencing were met.

Orders