New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Failing to stop

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2022

SCOTT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 3295

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3295
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the 10 month starting point for the unlawful use of the vehicle was within the available range given the use of the vehicle to flee police and traffic offending; the s 27 cultural report should have attracted a marginally higher discount (an additional 5% equating to about one month) but that error was not material and did not make the final 18 month sentence manifestly excessive, so the sentence was affirmed.
19 Sept 2022

SUTHERLAND v NZ POLICE [2022] NZHC 2399

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2399
Court

High Court

Given mandatory minimum and cumulative disqualification requirements under the Land Transport Act producing a 12-month floor, and considering the seriousness of the offending (flight from police, erratic high-speed driving, near-collision, crash), the total 18-month disqualification was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
21 Sept 2021

R v MANE [2021] NZHC 2511

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2511
Court

High Court

The Court fixed individual starting points (group one unlawful possession and related offences 2 years 6 months; wounding with reckless disregard 3 years 6 months; male assaults female 6 months), ordered appropriate concurrency and cumulation (first group concurrent, wounding cumulative, male assaults concurrent with wounding), applied reductions for guilty plea (15%), youth (10%), s27 cultural matters (10%) and remorse (5%) totalling 40%, resulting in an overall sentence of three years' imprisonment and cumulative driving disqualifications (6 months + 12 months).
16 Sept 2021

MANAHI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2430

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2430
Court

High Court

The High Court found the District Court's composite starting point was excessive by two uplifts (past offending uplift and arguably too-large uplift for ancillary offending) and increased guilty plea discount; the s 27 report established a nexus between early life adversity and offending such that greater mitigation was warranted; given appellant's age, primary caregiver status and a suitable monitored address, home detention was a lawful and appropriate substitute for imprisonment; accordingly the sentences of imprisonment were quashed and substituted with three months' home detention with s…
2 Sept 2021

R v THOMSON [2021] NZHC 2304

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2304
Court

High Court

The court was bound to impose the mandatory maximum 14-year sentence for each aggravated robbery under s86D Sentencing Act 2002, but on a holistic assessment of the offence and offender the court was satisfied it would be manifestly unjust to require the sentences to be served without parole under s86D(3); accordingly the 14-year sentences were imposed with ordinary parole eligibility after one-third, and other sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.
5 Mar 2021

WILSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 402

Citation

[2021] NZHC 402
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court did not err: the 12 month starting point for unlawful use and 18 month uplift for the additional driving offences were within range given the facts and authorities; the 10% uplift for prior dishonesty (excluding driving convictions) was not double-counting and was open to the Judge; no Zhang discount was allowed because there was no persuasive evidence addiction causally mitigated the offending; appeal dismissed and original sentence affirmed.
18 Dec 2020

HUTCHINSON v R [2020] NZCA 655

Citation

[2020] NZCA 655
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal because, although the individual starting points were within available ranges and the October uplift was justified, the sentencing judge failed to give a two month totality reduction expressly indicated at sentence and understated mitigation for the appellant's youth; correcting those errors warranted reducing the aggregate sentence from five years four months to four years ten months' imprisonment.
6 Nov 2020

GRAY v R [2020] NZCA 548

Citation

[2020] NZCA 548
Court

Court of Appeal

The two and a half year driving disqualification was unlawful because statutory minimum disqualifications required six months for failing to stop and at least six months for reckless driving that must be made cumulative under s 52A(6), producing a 12 month disqualification; the appellate court quashed the 2.5 year disqualification and substituted 12 months.
3 Nov 2020

MANGA v POLICE [2020] NZHC 2882

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2882
Court

High Court

The Judge erred in imposing a two and a half year disqualification; under ss 52A(1)(a)(ii), 52A(3) and 52A(6) the mandatory disqualifications for failing to stop and reckless driving are cumulative and total 12 months, therefore the 2.5 year order was quashed and replaced with 12 months.
9 Sept 2020

R v PAN [2020] NZHC 2342

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2342
Court

High Court

Starting point fixed at three years and ten months (three years four months for the drink-driving causing death charge plus a six month uplift for failing to stop) because of high intoxication (214 mg/100ml), poor driving and victim suffering; after applying discounts totalling 25 months (10% good character, 10% remorse, 10% restorative justice, 25% guilty plea) the effective sentence equated to 21 months' imprisonment, but having balanced the purposes of sentencing and mitigating factors (remorse, good character, restorative justice outcome, victim's wish, low reoffending risk and rehabilita…