New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conditions of supervision

Legal area

Court

16 Nov 2021

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v TURI [2021] NZHC 3488

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3488
Court

High Court

The Court found the respondent is an eligible offender, that his conviction history and assessor's multi-method evaluation satisfy the s107IAA characteristics (intense drive to violence, extreme aggressive volatility, persistent vengeful intentions, limited self-regulation and lack of concern for victims), and that actuarial and clinical evidence establish a very high risk of future relevant violent offending; accordingly an ESO for the minimum period required for community safety — three years — was ordered.
6 Jul 2021

R v S [2021] NZHC 1669

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1669
Court

High Court

Judge found the nasheeds were terrorist‑promoting and that purpose and surrounding ISIS‑related material and conduct (including offending while on bail and deliberate deletion of browsing history) aggravated the offending; a six month starting point with one month uplift was appropriate absent time served, but because of lengthy remand custody the appropriate final sentence was one year of supervision (concurrent on three charges) with specified clear conditions restricting internet device use, requiring disclosure of social media, surrender of devices to Probation on request, residence at th…
1 Apr 2021

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v TULILOA [2021] NZHC 745

Citation

[2021] NZHC 745
Court

High Court

On the evidence the Court was provisionally satisfied the ESO criteria in s107I were met (pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and high future risk under s107IAA(1)); consequently an ISO was necessary to prevent uncontrolled release and intensive monitoring plus tailored standard and special conditions were proportionate and necessary to reduce risk and promote rehabilitation pending final ESO determination.
22 Feb 2017

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v PARSONS [2017] NZHC 229

Citation

[2017] NZHC 229
Court

High Court

The court found the statutory criteria in s 107I and s 107IAA were satisfied: Parsons has a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and presents a high risk of future relevant sexual offending due to intense sexual drive, predilection, limited self-regulation, lack of remorse/empathy, recent breaches and gender‑identity related stressors; accordingly a 10 year ESO (maximum permitted) is necessary as the minimum period to protect the community, together with 12 months intensive monitoring and interim special conditions commencing immediately.
21 Dec 2016

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v VAN DER PLAAT [2016] NZHC 3186

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3186
Court

High Court

Court accepted health assessors (Dr Smith and Ms Cleland) that respondent meets s107IAA criteria (intense sexual drive, predilection for serious sexual offending, limited self‑regulatory capacity and lack of remorse), that his convictions and photographic conduct demonstrate a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and that he poses a high risk of committing relevant sexual offences; accordingly the Court exercised its discretion to impose an extended supervision order for five years commencing 21 December 2016 with interim special conditions to protect the community.

New Zealand Case Law

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v TURI [2021] NZHC 3488

R v S [2021] NZHC 1669

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v TULILOA [2021] NZHC 745

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v PARSONS [2017] NZHC 229

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v VAN DER PLAAT [2016] NZHC 3186