New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Escape from custody

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2023

BIMLER v POLICE [2023] NZHC 2661

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2661
Court

High Court

The High Court recalculated an appropriate starting point by treating the two receiving charges as the lead offending (20 months) and imposing an 18‑month uplift for the serial shoplifting, a six‑month uplift for escape, and two months for remaining charges, producing a starting point which, after a 15% uplift for offending on bail and a limited uplift for prior convictions, and after applying 25% guilty plea credit and 15% personal mitigation credit and allowance for EM bail time, resulted in a reduced and proportionate sentence of 23 months' imprisonment; the original 29‑month sentence was…
4 Aug 2023

GORDON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2053

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2053
Court

High Court

The starting point of 16 months for disqualified driving and associated false identity offending was within the permissible range, but the judge erred in failing to credit the appellant for relevant personal mitigation arising from background and addiction factors; applying a 10% mitigation adjustment (with other adjustments) produced a substituted sentence of 1 year 5 months (17 months) on the disqualified driving charge and a corrected one-year disqualification for the false identity offence commencing 7 August 2024.
20 Dec 2021

PRICE v POLICE [2021] NZHC 3265

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3265
Court

High Court

The trial Judge's discrete uplifts produced a cumulative starting point of 51 months which was manifestly excessive under the totality principle; substituting a 45-month starting point and applying discounts (guilty plea 25%, personal/cultural 15%, youth 10%) produced an appropriate end sentence of 23 months imprisonment; the appeal is allowed, the District Court sentence is quashed and replaced with 23 months with leave to apply for home detention if a suitable residence is found.
4 Jun 2020

GILL v R [2020] NZCA 214

Citation

[2020] NZCA 214
Court

Court of Appeal

The expert evidence was correctly excluded because it would not be substantially helpful to the jury: the witness had not examined the appellant, relied on medical records two years old, and ADHD varies such that generalised evidence could not assist whether the appellant heard and understood a brief arrest warning; the special release conditions were justified under s93(3) given the appellant's offending history and available clinical material, so the sentence appeal failed.
30 Jul 2019

WHITE v NZ POLICE [2019] NZHC 1818

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1818
Court

High Court

The High Court held the starting point for the perverting charge could not be challenged; the uplifts for associated offending including escape were justified; the guilty plea and restorative justice credits applied were within available range; and, after applying the totality principle and credits, the aggregate sentence was not demonstrably excessive, therefore the appeal was dismissed and the sentence upheld.
13 May 2019

BRADY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1040

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1040
Court

High Court

Appellant's convictions and sentences for escaping custody, failing to give/verify particulars and failing to remain stopped are upheld on the evidence; jurisdictional 'special appearance' arguments are legally invalid; disqualification under s124 was properly imposed; contempt finding for wilful refusal to obey court direction is upheld and the 10‑day imprisonment is not manifestly excessive; however, one $1,500 fine (for failure to remain stopped) is quashed due to duplication with the escaping offence; leave to file the appeal out of time is granted in the exercise of discretion.
27 Mar 2018

KOTI v R [2018] NZHC 547

Citation

[2018] NZHC 547
Court

High Court

The District Court's global starting point was excessive. The High Court recalculated appropriate starting points for discrete groups of offending, set a correct global starting point of 54 months, allowed specified adjustments (three month uplift for offending on bail), applied appropriate reductions for youth, EM bail credit and guilty pleas, and concluded the proper overall sentence is 37 months' imprisonment. The appeal was allowed and the District Court sentence quashed and substituted accordingly.
17 Nov 2017

HUATA v THE QUEEN [2017] NZHC 2833

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2833
Court

High Court

A five‑month discount (33%) for 15 months spent on 24‑hour EM bail was within the permissible range of judicial discretion given Court of Appeal guidance; the sentence of five months' home detention was not manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.
18 Jul 2017

PIHEMA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 1672

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1672
Court

High Court

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 May 2008

TAYLOR V R SC 19/2008

Citation

SC 19/2008
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because statutory deeming provisions in the Crimes Act and the validation in s 16(2) of the Penal Institutions Act established that the applicant was in lawful custody despite any defect in delegation, the indictment sufficiently alleged escape from lawful custody, and the application did not meet the statutory criteria for leave to appeal.