R v Robinson - [2016] NZHC 1247

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2013-088-001658 [2016] NZHC 1247

THE QUEEN

v

CHRISTOPHER JOHN ROBINSON

Hearing: 10 June 2016

Counsel:

R B Annandale for the Crown
C S Cull for the Defendant

Sentence:

10 June 2016

SENTENCE OF DUFFY J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

R v ROBINSON [2016] NZHC 1247 [10 June 2016]

[1] Mr Robinson, you were found guilty by a jury on one charge of blackmail,

which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.

Factual background

[2] On 2 May 2013, you sent an email to IAG and its solicitor, Mr Hlavac, in which you threatened to publish wide-ranging accusations of dishonesty and misconduct about both victims unless they complied with certain demands, as set out in that document. The demands included the payment of more than $5 million and that IAG “withdraw the evidence” in a criminal case against you, “work” to have the case “immediately and publicly dismissed” and refrain from “press[ing] or assist[ing] in any civil or criminal action”.

[3] You sent further emails to IAG on 7 and 10 May 2013. In those emails you repeated your threat to make public allegations of illegal conduct and to publish information which would cause serious embarrassment to IAG unless your demands were met.

[4] You described those communications as a “settlement offer”. However, the reality is, as was found by the jury, that those emails amounted to the criminal offence of blackmail.

Victim impact statement

[5] Mr Donegan gave a victim impact statement on behalf of IAG. He noted that it was not unusual for customers to make threats of media complaints in order to receive pay-outs on their claims. He said that your threats went far beyond those run of the mill interactions which are part and parcel of the insurance business. Mr Donegan emphasised that IAG relies upon a reputation for honesty and good faith. The threats made by you posed a direct and illegitimate threat to not only IAG as a corporation, but to the individual experts whom IAG employs in its business. Your actions have caused financial cost to the company as well as significant stress to the individuals affected by and involved with the case.

[6] The nature of the threats you made seemed to me to be overly excessive. They displayed elements of grandiosity in some respects and detachment from reality. I am somewhat surprised that IAG has been as badly affected by those threats as it states in the victim impact report. I can understand the financial steps they took to stop bad publicity on the internet, but nonetheless, to me, the threats were so excessive in many respects I find it hard to accept that they would be taken seriously. However, whether threats are capable of being carried out or whether they are serious really is neither here nor there when it comes to blackmail.

Personal circumstances

[7] You are 68 years old and have lived in New Zealand since 2005. You are…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [2016] NZHC 1247
Case: [2016] NZHC 1247
Decision Date: 10 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr Christopher John Robinson was convicted of blackmail, specifically for sending threatening emails to IAG and its solicitor, demanding over $5 million and the withdrawal of evidence in a criminal case against him. The court considered the aggravating factors such as the large sum demanded, the persistence of the demands, and the premeditated nature of the offence, which were compounded by Robinson's previous convictions for blackmail. The mitigating factors included the lack of threats of violence or damage to property, and Robinson's unsuccessful attempt at blackmail.

The court determined that an appropriate starting point for sentencing was 20 months' imprisonment, taking into account Robinson's previous convictions and his demonstrated remorse. The court recognised the importance of denunciation and deterrence in cases of blackmail and considered that a sentence of home detention would adequately fulfil these purposes. Ultimately, the court sentenced Robinson to nine months' home detention, with specific conditions regarding his residence and contact with the probation officer, reflecting the seriousness of the offence while considering the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders