R v Thompson - [2012] NZHC 798

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT, HIS TOWN OF RESIDENCE AND DETAILS OF THE NATURE OF THE ALLEGATION THAT WAS MADE TO BLACKMAIL HIM.
NOTE: THESE SENTENCING REMARKS HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN A FORM THAT MEANS THAT THEY CAN BE PUBLISHED IN FULL WITHOUT RESTRICTION.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI 2011-077-1415 [2012] NZHC 798

THE QUEEN

v

DOMINIC JASON JONATHON THOMPSON

Hearing: 27 April 2012

Counsel: N Tahana for Crown
M Hine for Prisoner

Judgment: 27 April 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
M Hine, Rotorua

R V THOMPSON HC ROT CRI 2011-077-1415 [27 April 2012]

Introduction

[1] Dominic Jason Jonathon Thompson, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of blackmail. Although captured in one charge, there were two incidents in which you extorted payment from a man of advancing years and one other when your attempt was unsuccessful. The sentence I impose today will reflect the totality of your offending.

[2] At the start of today’s hearing, to protect the victim, I made orders prohibiting publication of his name and identifying particulars, his town of residence and details concerning the nature of the allegation that you made against him. Having made those orders, I make it clear for the press that my remarks today have been prepared in a form that can be published publicly, without amendment.

Facts

[3] On 11 January 2011, you went to the complainant’s home. You accused him of assaulting a relation. You demanded that he pay to you a sum of $700, stating that if the money was not paid you would break his arms and legs. While the Crown asserts that you also threatened to burn down his house, I am aware that you do not accept that allegation. As it will be immaterial for the purposes of sentencing, I put that allegation to one side for today’s purposes.

[4] The complainant was too intimidated to contact the Police. At about 4pm on

11 January 2011, he withdrew money from his bank account. You returned to his home and collected the money about 7pm that day.

[5] On 17 January 2011 you returned to the complainant’s home demanding more money. The demand was made based on the same allegation. The sum of
$6,000 was required. You threatened the complainant that if he went to the Police he was “gone”. You repeated threats of violence made on 11 January. The following day the complainant withdrew $6,000 from his personal bank account and gave it to you.

[6] The next incident occurred on 22 September 2011 when you went to the complainant’s house to demand more money. At first sight it seems strange that such a long time passed between the visit on 17 January and the one on 22 September. That is explained, however, by the fact that, on unrelated charges of violence, you were then imprisoned and a serving prisoner during most of that time.

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 Thompson

Details

AGLC: R v Thompson [2012] NZHC 798
Case: [2012] NZHC 798
Decision Date: 27 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Thompson involved Dominic Jason Jonathon Thompson who was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for the offence of blackmail. Thompson had pleaded guilty to one charge of blackmail, which involved two incidents of extorting money from a man, with a third attempt being unsuccessful. The court imposed an order prohibiting the publication of the complainant's name, residence, and the nature of the allegation to protect his identity. The sentencing remarks were prepared in a way that allowed them to be published without restriction.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for the offence of blackmail, taking into account the totality of Thompson's offending, the impact on the victim, and Thompson's personal circumstances. The court had to balance the goals of denunciation, deterrence, accountability, and protection of the public while considering the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case.

In delivering the sentence, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the impact on the victim, who suffered both financially and emotionally. The court noted several aggravating factors, including the persistence of the offending, the increasing demands for money, and the affront to the victim's dignity. The court also considered Thompson's extensive criminal history, which included numerous prior convictions for violence and dishonesty. Despite Thompson's guilty plea and a late request for a restorative justice meeting, the court found that he showed no real remorse and had spent the extorted money on personal items. The court ultimately sentenced Thompson to imprisonment for a term of two years and six months, after applying a reduced credit for his guilty plea.

Orders