R v BARTLETT [2018] NZHC 3449

R v BARTLETT [2018] NZHC 3449

Preventive detention was not imposed because, although the offender posed a current risk of violent reoffending, the risk exceeded the threshold only marginally and a lengthy finite cumulative sentence together with requirements for rehabilitation and monitoring was sufficient to meet the purposes of sentencing. The Court fixed specific starting points (5 years for GBH; 18 months and 18 months for related offences; 12 months for dishonesty) reduced for guilty pleas and applied cumulative sentencing to reach an effective sentence of seven years' imprisonment; no minimum period under s86 was imposed because cumulative sentences produced parole eligibility comparable to any reasonable...

Citation
[2018] NZHC 3449
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: Wade Dylan Bartlett
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
21 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment; preventive detention declined; effective cumulative sentence of seven years' imprisonment; no reparation ordered; no driving disqualification imposed.
Legal Topics
Injuring With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm, Assault With Intent to Injure, Preventive Detention Test, Starting Points and Uplift, Totality Principle, Minimum Period of Imprisonment, Guilty Plea Discount, Gang Related Offending, Rehabilitation and Parole
Criminal Law Sentencing Preventive Detention Prison Offences Violent Offending Dishonesty Offences Injuring With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm Assault With Intent to Injure +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Wade Dylan Bartlett

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether preventive detention should be imposed under s87 Sentencing Act 2002
  2. 2 Appropriate starting points and cumulative sentences for multiple violent offences
  3. 3 Whether uplift or additional marking out is required for repeat violent offending in prison

Ratio Decidendi

Preventive detention was not imposed because, although the offender posed a current risk of violent reoffending, the risk exceeded the threshold only marginally and a lengthy finite cumulative sentence together with requirements for rehabilitation and monitoring was sufficient to meet the purposes of sentencing. The Court fixed specific starting points (5 years for GBH; 18 months and 18 months for related offences; 12 months for dishonesty) reduced for guilty pleas and applied cumulative sentencing to reach an effective sentence of seven years' imprisonment; no minimum period under s86 was imposed because cumulative sentences produced parole eligibility comparable to any reasonable...

Court Disposition

Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment; preventive detention declined; effective cumulative sentence of seven years' imprisonment; no reparation ordered; no driving disqualification imposed.