New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disproportionality

Legal area

Court

4 May 2023

STEVENS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & OR [2023] NZHC 1051

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1051
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the judicial review application, holding the prison director and the Chief Executive's delegate acted within the statutory powers in ss58–60 of the Corrections Act 2004, there was probative evidence to support the segregation and its extensions, no material error of law or breach of natural justice was established, and reliance on on‑site staff assessments did not amount to unlawful abdication of discretion.
16 Dec 2021

MATARA v R [2021] NZCA 692

Citation

(2021) 12 HRNZ 944
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 86C(4) must be read subject to NZBORA, in particular s9; a sentencing Judge is not required to order that a second strike sentence be served without parole where doing so would produce punishment disproportionately severe and inconsistent with s9. Applying that principle the non-parole order in this case was disproportionate and the sentence is adjusted to 10 years 2 months imprisonment with an MPI of 40%.
11 Oct 2019

MARKO OTIS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZSC 113

Citation

[2019] NZSC 113
Court

Supreme Court

The application for direct leave to appeal was dismissed because the case raises no exceptional circumstances or question of general public importance warranting Supreme Court intervention; the High Court and Court of Appeal adequately considered the factual matters and the assessment of disproportionality was case-specific.
26 May 2011

SOLICITOR-GENERAL V KEEFE HC NAP CIV 2009-441-000608

Citation

openlaw-1717d576_4532_479f_b161_71e28a85aa4a.pdf
Court

High Court

Court held that (a) the house was used predominately for commercial cannabis cultivation and was therefore tainted; (b) the Crown proved on the balance of probabilities that at least half of the cash and bank balances were proceeds of Ms Keefe's sales based on evidence of her active role (deliveries and door sales) and forensic apportionment, and (c) forfeiture of Ms Keefe's remaining interest in the house and half the cash and bank monies was not grossly disproportionate because likely proceeds from the operation substantially exceeded the value of the forfeited interests, so a forfeiture or…
10 Nov 2008

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL V VERCOE AND ANOR HC TAU CIV 2006-470-1066

Citation

openlaw-a6988436_bfda_4700_9915_0b3d23291d60.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the property was tainted by methamphetamine manufacture, the Court exercised its wide discretion under s15(2) and declined to order forfeiture because the connection between the offending and the property was limited, the respondent's role was not primary and included evidence of compulsion/pressure, much cannabis was for personal use, the property was the respondent's sole long‑standing residence with substantial equity (~$200,000), and forfeiture would be disproportionately severe and cause undue hardship in all the circumstances.

New Zealand Case Law

STEVENS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & OR [2023] NZHC 1051

MATARA v R [2021] NZCA 692

MARKO OTIS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZSC 113

SOLICITOR-GENERAL V KEEFE HC NAP CIV 2009-441-000608

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL V VERCOE AND ANOR HC TAU CIV 2006-470-1066