New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of intensive supervision

Legal area

Court

13 Dec 2023

BONNIFACE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3674

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3674
Court

High Court

The sentencing Judge erred by failing to apply the totality principle to the cumulative 23 month starting point; a two month reduction to the starting point was warranted. The 10% uplifts for offending on bail and for criminal history were justified and within range. No discount was appropriate for the guilty pleas to the assault charges given they were entered after the Crown case was contested. The appropriate final outcome was to quash the original imprisonment sentences and substitute a 10 month period of home detention with standard and specified special conditions.
28 Jun 2023

WIKI v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 1634

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1634
Court

High Court

The Court held the starting point for driving whilst disqualified was excessive and reduced it (to about eight months), removed the one-month uplift for low-level breaches (entering convictions and discharging the breaches instead), fixed an adjusted starting point of 35 months, applied the Judge's personal factor allowances but added a discrete three-month credit for prolonged restrictive bail conditions despite minor breaches, and, having regard to youth and vulnerability and s 16 Sentencing Act, substituted a custodial sentence with nine months' home detention commencing 29 June 2023 (quas…
24 Apr 2023

YUSUF v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 906

Citation

[2023] NZHC 906
Court

High Court

Because the breach was prosecuted under s 70A the sentence must relate solely to that breach; cancelling the original intensive supervision and re-imposing the same sentence was an error and the 15 month sentence was manifestly excessive and must be reduced to 8 months intensive supervision.
12 Apr 2023

RAWIRI v R [2023] NZCA 104

Citation

[2023] NZCA 104
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was granted because there was an arguable miscarriage of justice: it was reasonably arguable that a greater guilty plea discount was available given COVID-related delays and disclosure failures, and that an objectively verifiable 10 months on EM bail had not been credited, such that the end sentence may be manifestly excessive; the matter merits urgent oral hearing.
29 Jul 2022

R v KAWHE [2022] NZHC 1852

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1852
Court

High Court

Applying ordinary sentencing principles because mandatory three strikes sentence would breach s9 NZBORA, the Court set a starting point of 18 months for the robbery, uplifted that by 15% for extensive prior convictions and offending while subject to sentence, applied a 20% discount for the guilty plea, and imposed a global sentence of 17 months' imprisonment (with credit for time served); home detention was declined absent specialist reports and effective custodial release conditions and special release conditions were imposed.
29 Oct 2019

ASRES v POLICE [2019] NZHC 2760

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2760
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the final nine month sentence was within the available range and not manifestly excessive, and there was no impermissible double counting: the January offending was not part of the appellant's recorded criminal history when the earlier I.S. sentence was imposed and retroactive hypothetical incorporation would be speculative, so the uplift for prior history did not duplicate punishment for the same conduct.
20 Jun 2019

GARRETT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1411

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1411
Court

High Court

The District Court's sentence for receiving exceeded the statutory maximum and, after reassessing totality, culpability and aggravating breaches, the High Court restructured and substituted an end sentence of seven months' imprisonment because cumulative sentencing was available and the original construction error produced a manifestly excessive outcome.
17 Jun 2019

HALL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1370

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1370
Court

High Court

Although the sentencing Judge made arithmetical errors that reduced the sentence, the end sentence actually imposed (two years and ten months' imprisonment) was within the available and appropriate range and was not manifestly excessive; the appeal is therefore dismissed and the sentence is affirmed, and it is not appropriate in the circumstances to increase the sentence to the higher figure the Judge had intended to impose.
1 Mar 2019

HAEREROA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 318

Citation

[2019] NZHC 318
Court

High Court

Although the starting point for the obtaining by deception charges was at the higher end of the available range, and the sentencing Judge misstated the total loss figure, the combined starting points and uplifts were proportionate in all the circumstances; there was no significant error requiring appellate substitution and the sentence of four and a half years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
9 Nov 2017

ESPIE v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2741

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2741
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the sentencing Judge did not err in concluding that repeated and serious non‑compliance with community‑based sentences, failure to engage with alcohol/drug programmes, and absence of a viable address or realistic prospect of compliance rendered imprisonment the only appropriate option; the seven month term was not manifestly excessive and refusal to adjourn to assess home detention was not an error.