R v Robinson

[2017] NZHC 314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2013-088-1656 [2017] NZHC 314

THE QUEEN

v

CHRISTOPHER JOHN ROBINSON

Hearing:	2 March 2017
Appearances:	T Hu appearing for the Department of Corrections RP Chambers for Defendant
Sentence:	2 March 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v Robinson [2017] NZHC 314 [2 March 2017]

[1]      On  10 June 2016,  having  been  found  guilty  and  convicted  of  blackmail, Christopher  John  Robinson  was  sentenced  by  Duffy J  to  nine  months'  home detention.1     The sentence began on 13 June 20162  and is due to expire, in only

10 days time, on 12 March 2017.

[2]      Having served all but the last few days of his sentence in faithful compliance with the obligations imposed on him, Mr Robinson now applies under s 80F(1)(d) of the Sentencing Act 2002 for an order cancelling the sentence of home detention on humanitarian grounds.

[3]      The circumstances are that Mr Robinson, who is 68 years old, is in poor health and under the fulltime care of his wife.  Mrs Robinson's mother, who lives in the United Kingdom, is elderly and frail and has recently suffered serious health set- backs.   It is proposed that Mrs Robinson should go to England to become her mother's fulltime carer.   She cannot do so, however, so long as she is required to remain in New Zealand and look after her husband.  Mr Robinson, therefore, wishes to accompany his wife back to England.

[4]      I  am  satisfied,  on  the  available  medical  evidence  and  the  other  matters contained in Mr Robinson's affidavit, that there has been a change in circumstances since the sentence was imposed and that, having regard to the manner in which Mr Robinson has responded to the sentence, the continuation of the sentence is no

longer necessary in the interests of the community.3

[5]      I record that Mr Chambers made diligent efforts to engage the authorities in this matter; first with the Crown  and then with the Department of Corrections. Through no fault of counsel or the applicant, there has been a regrettable delay in getting the application to a point where the order can be made.   I am grateful to

Mr Chambers for his efforts.

1      R v Robinson [2016] NZHC 1247.

2 At [40].

3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 80F(1)(d)(ii).

[6]      I  have  received  a  report  from  the  Service  Manger  of  the  North  Shore Community Probation Services which does not give me any reason to doubt that it is appropriate to make the order sought.

[7]      Ms Hu, however, raises the issue of post-sentence conditions.  The standard conditions  which  would  apply  for  12 months,  under  s 80N(2)(a),  could  not  be complied with if Mr Robinson returned to the United Kingdom.  It is suggested by Ms Hu  that  Mr Robinson  should  be  discharged  from  compliance  with  those conditions,  but  on  the  condition  that  if  he  returns  to  New  Zealand  before

2 March 2018 he will report promptly to the Probation Service and that the Probation Service may impose post-sentence conditions under if necessary.  Those orders seem to be appropriate and Mr Chambers does not oppose them.

[8]      Accordingly:

(a)       Pursuant to s 80F(1)(d)(ii) of the Sentencing Act 2002, I cancel the sentence       of                 home           detention    imposed    on    Mr Robinson    on

13 June 2016, with immediate effect.

(b)      The post-sentence conditions are discharged pursuant to s 80R(3)(b)

of the Act, on the conditions that –

(i)       Mr Robinson  is  directed  to  report  to  Probation  Services  in

New  Zealand  forthwith  upon  his  return  between  now  and

2 March 2018; and

(ii)The Probation Service may impose post-sentence conditions under s 80O of the Act if appropriate.

.................................................

Toogood J