Court to decide if threatening letter crossed into blackmail

When a woman’s car was stolen, she decided to take matters into her own hands and wrote a letter to the person she believed was involved, demanding money.

But the situation raised a key question, was it a request for compensation or was it blackmail?

That’s the question for a jury after Suzanne Petitt appeared in the Whangārei District Court on Friday to stand trial on one charge of blackmail in relation to a letter she sent a woman after her car was stolen.

Crown lawyer Alex Goodwin presented the case to the jury and said Petitt threatened to pursue criminal charges if her associate, Serenity Tebbut, did not pay her $1500.

In June 2023, Petitt arrived at Tebbut’s house seeking an unpaid debt of $400. Tebbut was not home but, while Petitt was there, three females came out of the house and took her car.

The car was eventually returned; however, Petitt claimed items were missing such as a debit card, tobacco, phone and a lighter and that her card had been accessed at Mobil Kamo.

Petitt tried to have criminal charges laid; however, Detective Heidi Westlake gave evidence that police closed their file because there was no evidence of Petitt’s claims.

Petitt then wrote a letter and mailed it to Tebbut’s house which her father picked up and turned into police.

The letter was read in court to the jury which said:

"Last time I caught up with you, oh that’s right, you owe me $400. Knowing that you could have just refunded me, taken back your s*** and then resolved to some other mug but not you aye mate, you decided to be a c***.

"Well, how’s that working out for you so far mate? Not too good from what I’ve heard. Karma can be a b****.

"So given what went down with you getting your monkeys trying to steal my car and my personal s*** and all. That $400 you owe me has now increased to $1500.

"So the way I see it Serenity is you’ve got two options.

"One, you can call in your dogs to do your dirty work for you again like you did last time ... or

"Two, you can square me up."

The letter went on to say she would go to the police and lay charges which could result in a seven-year term of imprisonment.

"Because if you think you’re connected, it might pay to fully enlighten your monkeys that I also have got some good friends. And they’ll gladly help me out. So the choice is yours.

"The thing about me mate is that I don’t let sleeping dogs lie ...

"If you choose option two, which I strongly advise, I’ll expect payment into my account before the end of August."

Goodwin said the threat to overbear Tebbut was clear in black and white.

"Think about the tone, what’s being demanded, what she says she’s going to do. Holding a threat is not reasonable, it is blackmail."

Petitt’s lawyer, Chris Muston, said there was a difference in the Crown’s definition of the letter.

"The letter that Suzanne Petitt wrote is not a blackmail letter, it is a letter of demand and there is a difference."

It was the defence case that Petitt had to take matters into her own hands after police closed her file without seeking the identification of the three females who took her car.

"It became clear to her police were not going to take steps to recover her belongings.

"So what does a woman do to recover her property from three women who have taken them pretty boldly?" Muston put to the jury.

"This is not a typical blackmail case."

Westlake gave evidence when the car theft was investigated that Petitt’s vehicle had been returned, her items were unable to be located and there was no evidence Tebbut was involved.

Petitt believed the three women had attempted to use her card at Mobil Kamo and Westlake said the CCTV returned a "negative result" and, from the notes she viewed, no women entered the store during that time.

Muston put to Westlake the officers did not know what the women looked like and Petitt should have been invited to view the footage so she could identify them.

"So you’re saying between 10.15am and 1pm on Saturday, no females entered the petrol station?" Muston asked.

"Those officers viewed the CCTV footage and that’s what they said," Westlake responded.

The manager of the Kamo Mobil gave evidence he handed the CCTV over to police after Petitt requested to view it multiple times.

"Police never asked but I could tell it was affecting Suzanne so I took it in," the manager said.

The jury retired to deliberate around 3pm on Friday.

By Shannon Pitman