DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM v R [2020] NZSC 23
The Supreme Court recalled its earlier dismissal and granted leave to appeal on the narrow legal question whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention where the offender had already served a period of home detention, because that question raises a question of general...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZSC 23
- Parties
- Applicant: Dermot Gregory Nottingham; Respondent: The Queen
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 20 March 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (sentence) / Leave to Appeal Granted Following Recall of Prior Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment of 12 December 2019 recalled; leave to appeal granted in relation to sentence only.
- Legal Topics
- Home Detention, Leave to Appeal, Recall of Judgment, Application of Senior Courts Act S74(2)
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dermot Gregory Nottingham
Applicant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (sentence) / Leave to Appeal Granted Following Recall of Prior Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention where the offender had already served a period of home detention
- 2 Whether the Supreme Court should recall its prior judgment and grant leave to appeal on a question of general principle
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court recalled its earlier dismissal and granted leave to appeal on the narrow legal question whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention where the offender had already served a period of home detention, because that question raises a question of general principle under Senior Courts Act 2016 s74(2).
Court Disposition
Judgment of 12 December 2019 recalled; leave to appeal granted in relation to sentence only.
Orders
- Recall the judgment Nottingham v R [2019] NZSC 144.
- Grant leave to appeal on the question whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention where the offender had already served a period of home detention.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM v R [2020] NZSC 23 [20 March 2020]NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER IN [2014] NZHC 550 PROHIBITINGPUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OFDEFENDANTS IN [2014] NZHC 550 AND [2014] NZHC 1848 REMAINSIN FORCE.NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER IN [2018] NZDC 15368 PROHIBITINGPUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF T, C, H, BAND M REMAINS IN FORCE.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 83/2019[2020] NZSC 23BETWEEN DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAMApplicantAND THE QUEENRespondentCourt: Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJCounsel: Applicant in personC A Brook for RespondentJudgment: 20 March 2020JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The judgment of 12 December 2019 (Nottingham v R[2019] NZSC 144) is recalled and leave to appeal is grantedin relation to the appeal against sentence.B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal wascorrect to impose the maximum period of home detentionin circumstances where the offender had already served aperiod of home detention in relation to the offending.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant seeks a recall of our judgment of 12 December 20191 dismissinghis application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal.2[2] Nothing has been advanced which would warrant a recall of our decision notto grant leave to appeal in relation to conviction. The application for recall in thatrespect is in substance primarily an attempt to re-argue the application for leave.[3] Having had the benefit of further submissions from both parties on the questionof the correct approach to sentence, we agree with the applicant that this aspect of theproposed appeal raises a question of general principle.3 The judgment is recalled andleave to appeal is granted on the question of whether the Court of Appeal was correctto impose the maximum period of home detention in circumstances where the offenderhad already served a period of home detention in relation to the offending.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent1 Nottingham v R [2019] NZSC 144.2 Nottingham v R [2019] NZCA 344 (Wild, Thomas and Muir JJ).3 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2).