R v Ohlson - [2022] NZHC 921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-063-002105

[2022] NZHC 921

THE QUEEN

v

DESMOND OHLSON

Hearing: 4 May 2022

Appearances:

L Evans for the Crown

F Wood for the Defendant

Sentencing:

4 May 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Rotorua Counsel: Tompkins Wake (F Wood), Rotorua

R v OHLSON [2022] NZHC 921 [4 May 2022]

[1] Mr Ohlson, you appear for sentencing having pleaded guilty to one charge of kidnapping pursuant to s 209 of the Crimes Act 1961, and one charge of participation in an organised criminal group pursuant to s 98A. The maximum penalties for these charges are 14 and 10 years’ imprisonment respectively.

Facts

[2] You played a small part in a larger plan to kidnap a woman and blackmail her father into handing over large sums of cash in exchange for her safe release. The offending was organised by Ms Rickylee Dixon, who believed the victim had stolen from her.

[3] The victim was kidnapped on two occasions. You were only involved in the second kidnapping.

[4] The first kidnapping occurred on 12 September 2020. The victim was pulled from her bed and threatened with an imitation firearm. She was taken to Ms Dixon’s address and beaten with a baseball bat within earshot of her father, who came to the address three times with increasing sums of money. As I have said, you were not involved in this kidnapping.

[5] The second kidnapping began on 21 October 2020. An associate of the victim took her to the carpark of a shopping centre. The victim sat in the back of the associate’s vehicle, next to the associate’s six-year-old daughter.

[6] You and Ms Dixon were sitting in a vehicle driven by an associate of yours, Mr Te Kiri, in the same carpark. You both left the vehicle and walked over to the victim. You stood by as Ms Dixon persuaded the victim to accompany her. The victim agreed to do so, not wanting to be dragged out of the vehicle in front of the young child next to her. A promise was made that the victim’s partner would be picked up to support her, and you were put in charge of arranging this.

[7] Ms Dixon and the victim left with Mr Te Kiri. You got into the victim’s associate’s vehicle and directed him to drive to the victim’s partner’s address. However, the victim’s partner refused to accompany you.

[8] Meanwhile, Mr Te Kiri and others took the victim to her father’s address, where he paid them several thousand dollars. They did not, however, release her. They drove around Rotorua, ending up at a bar, where you eventually joined them. You and other members of the group spent some of the cash provided by the victim’s father on gambling machines. During this time, the victim was locked in the car, under guard. It is unclear whether you…

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 Ohlson

Details

AGLC: R v Ohlson [2022] NZHC 921
Case: [2022] NZHC 921
Decision Date: 4 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ohlson, Desmond Ohlson was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for his involvement in a kidnapping and participation in an organised criminal group. Ohlson, a member of the Black Power gang, played a minor role in a plan to kidnap a woman and blackmail her father for money. He was involved in the second kidnapping but left before the victim was assaulted. The court had to decide on an appropriate sentence considering Ohlson's limited role, his personal circumstances, and his remorse. The defence argued for a starting point of two and a half to three years based on Ohlson's limited involvement and his care for the victim. The Crown, however, argued for a starting point of three years and nine months, considering Ohlson's role in the initial detention and his presence intimidating the victim. The court adopted a starting point of three years and six months, recognising Ohlson's minor role compared to others but considering his contribution to the initial detention. After applying various discounts and considering mitigating factors, the final sentence was 23 months' imprisonment, with Ohlson eligible to apply for home detention if a suitable address is available. He was also subject to six months of post-release conditions, including assessments and treatment for alcohol and drugs, and psychological assessments.

Orders