R v Le Frantz - [2012] NZHC 3149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-042-1790 [2012] NZHC 3149

THE QUEEN

v

JODIE MAREE LE FRANTZ

Counsel: E J Riddell for Crown
S J Zindel for Defendant

Judgment: 22 November 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF MACKENZIE J

[1] Jodie Maree Le Frantz, you appear for sentence, having pleaded guilty to a charge of blackmail under ss 237 and 238 of the Crimes Act 1961.

[2] On 18 June 2012, you delivered a letter addressed to the victim at his place of work, leaving it with security people. In the letter you demanded that the victim pay you a sum of $16,000, otherwise you would tell the victim’s wife of his infidelity. You said that you needed the money for an operation. You set out your bank account details and demanded that $8,000 be paid by 29 June, and a further $8,000 by
20 July.

[3] At 5pm on 22 June, you texted the victim a text message again threatening to tell the victim’s wife everything. At 10.49am on 25 June, you sent another text
message saying that he had until the end of the day to pay or you would go and see

R V LE FRANTZ HC NEL CRI-2012-042-1790 [22 November 2012]

his wife at home or her work and tell her everything. The victim reported the matter and you were apprehended.

[4] The effect on your victim has been described by him in the victim impact statement which he has read in Court today. He has taken that step of wishing to read his statement and has appeared in Court today. Notwithstanding that, I consider that in the circumstances, no further publicity than has already occurred of his name should be given, and I make an order suppressing the name of the victim.

[5] Turning to your personal circumstances, you are 34 years old and live in Nelson. You have three children. Your two eldest children have been removed from your care due to concerns about drug use, family violence in front of your children, and them being left home alone. Your eldest son (aged 15) has recently been returned to your care, with the approval of Child, Youth and Family. You are not employed. You are currently paying off fines and debt in relation to previous convictions.

[6] You have previous convictions for dishonesty and drug offending, but have not previously appeared for a similar offence. You are assessed as at medium risk of reoffending, primarily because of your drug use. Your risk of harm to the community is assessed as low but this could increase if you were to continue using drugs and also regained your driver’s licence. The pre-sentence report writer doubts your ability to comply with a community-based sentence due to your lack of motivation to address your drug problem.

[7] You do have a drug problem. You have been a client of Nelson Addiction Services since 2011. According to the report writer you only haphazardly attend appointments. Your continued drug…

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 [2012] NZHC 3149
Case: [2012] NZHC 3149
Decision Date: 22 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Le Frantz involved the defendant, Jodie Maree Le Frantz, who was charged with blackmail under sections 237 and 238 of the Crimes Act 1961. The defendant pleaded guilty to delivering a letter to the victim demanding payment of $16,000 under threat of revealing the victim's infidelity to his wife, with further threats made via text messages. The victim reported the matter, leading to the defendant's apprehension. The court was required to decide on an appropriate sentence considering the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's personal circumstances, and her rehabilitative needs.

The primary legal issue was determining the appropriate type and length of sentence, weighing the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court considered comparable cases and submissions from both defence and Crown counsel, ultimately concluding that imprisonment or home detention were the only viable options due to the gravity of the offence. The court favoured home detention, acknowledging the defendant's need to address her drug problem while also considering the impact on her children, particularly her recently returned son.

The court decided on a sentence of home detention for nine months, imposing strict conditions to address the defendant's drug and alcohol issues, and to prevent contact with the victim. The decision reflected a balance between the need for punishment and the opportunity for rehabilitation. The court expressed confidence in the defendant's potential for reform, provided she complied fully with the conditions of the sentence. Failure to adhere to the terms would result in the cancellation of the sentence and a prison term.

Orders