17 May 2023
The Court held the High Court did not err in applying a 15% guilty plea discount and that, even if a discount for approximately 10 months on EM bail were appropriate (likely 2–4 months), it would not produce a materially different sentence; therefore the 27-month sentence was not manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
17 Nov 2022
The District Court erred by failing to identify and order the mandatory non-release consequence under s 86C(4) for the injuring with intent offence; on appeal the sentence was quashed and substituted to reflect what the sentencing Judge would have imposed while preserving the actual period the offender would serve (6 months for injuring with intent with non-release order, and 9 months concurrent on remaining charges cumulative on the lead sentence), with appropriate discounts for guilty pleas and mental impairment and imposition of post-release conditions and a protection order.
8 Apr 2022
The Judge erred by applying contemporary sentencing starting points rather than those applicable when the offences were committed; on agreed correct starting points and agreed discounts the appropriate global sentence is 12 years 9 months' imprisonment and the Judge lacked jurisdiction to impose a minimum period under s86 for the relevant historic offending; accordingly the appeal is allowed, specified sentences are quashed and substituted, and the minimum period order is quashed.
29 Jul 2020
The High Court found only minor calculation and wording slips in the District Court's remarks but no material error in the evaluative exercise refusing home detention; the appeal was allowed only to correct sentencing concurrency and the disqualification timing: the two‑month sentence for possession of ammunition declared concurrent and the attempted disqualification from date of release quashed while confirming an 18‑month disqualification from the date of sentencing; all other aspects of the District Court sentence were confirmed.
20 Jun 2019
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.
21 Jun 2018
Court placed the sexual violation in the higher end of band 2/ lower end of band 3 and adopted a starting point for the rape of 12 years 6 months; calculated a global starting point of 14 years 9 months after adding appropriate starting points for separate District Court offences; applied a 10% discount for youth and a 5% discount for guilty pleas to some offences (limited because the complainant still had to give evidence), producing an effective aggregate sentence of 12 years 6 months imprisonment; set component terms (rape 10 years 8 months concurrent wounding 4 years; cumulative shorter t…
14 Jun 2018
The High Court held the overall 12 month imprisonment end sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court recalculated appropriate starting points (nine months for the driving offences uplifted one month because the second driving offence occurred on bail, plus cumulative three months each for the two low-level offending charges to a total starting point of 16 months), then allowed a full 25% discount for early guilty pleas, resulting in a 12 month sentence. The court found the District Court judge erred by not granting the guilty plea discount on the second driving charge but that the ultim…
28 Nov 2017
Court found defendant committed sustained, premeditated ill‑treatment against two children including life‑threatening suffocation and deliberate administration/overdosing of medication; accepted expert diagnosis of Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another as causative which reduced culpability and lessened need for deterrence, warranted a 30% discount from otherwise disproportionate starting points; imposed specified concurrent and cumulative sentences totaling seven years and one month imprisonment and declined to set a minimum period of imprisonment; ordered publication prohibition under s200…
18 Jul 2017
The sentencing contained multiple material errors — an incorrect arithmetic aggregation of component sentences, an impermissible exercise of jurisdiction under s111, incorrect sequencing of applying uplift and guilty plea discount, and a disproportionate uplift for prior offending — warranting re-sentencing; applying correct methodology yields a seven month starting point, a one month uplift, and a 25% guilty plea discount, resulting in a final sentence of six months' imprisonment.
26 Apr 2017
The High Court held the Judge's starting point of two years six months for the Manukau residential burglary was at the top of the applicable range and excessive; an appropriate starting point was two years, with a one month uplift for vehicular damage and a two month uplift for prior convictions bringing the pre-mitigation total to two years three months, a two month discount for remorse and rehabilitation and then a 10% guilty plea discount produced an end sentence of 23 months imprisonment; accordingly the original two years six months sentence for CRN 16092001756 was quashed and replaced w…