New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Failure to answer bail

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2021

CARPENTER and TEMPLE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 3545

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3545
Court

High Court

The Court found the uplift for balance offending was not excessive given the collective maximum penalties and representative nature of offending and upheld Mr Carpenter's sentence; however the Court accepted that Ms Temple had not been adequately credited for 22 days in custody and reduced her six months' home detention to four and a half months to correct a manifestly excessive outcome caused by that error.
14 May 2021

MANIAPOTO-GRANT v R [2021] NZHC 1084

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1084
Court

High Court

The cultural report established a sufficient causal nexus between the appellant's upbringing, substance abuse and the offending to justify a limited mitigation discount of 10%, but that mitigation was constrained by the appellant's multiple prior driving-related convictions and her awareness of risk; accordingly the Court allowed the appeal in part and substituted a reduced sentence of four years and one month imprisonment on the lead charge.
17 Jun 2020

CHAND v POLICE [2020] NZHC 1367

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1367
Court

High Court

Even allowing for mitigating factors, the appellant's knowing reception and continued use of a stolen vehicle made the offending at least moderately serious, and the likely consequences of conviction (including impact on a Customs application and the employer's right to know) were not out of all proportion to that gravity; therefore the District Court's refusal to grant a discharge was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
1 May 2020

BANKS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 859

Citation

[2020] NZHC 859
Court

High Court

The Court corrected a mathematical error in the District Court's starting point (from 4 years 7 months to 4 years 4 months), upheld the appropriateness of most uplifts (theft, deception, drug charges, failure to answer bail, reckless driving), avoided double counting by reducing some uplifts, accepted a 10% discrete discount for addiction and traumatic background on persuasive report evidence and a 20% guilty plea discount, and concluded the correct final sentence is three years' imprisonment served cumulatively on the existing sentence; the appeal was therefore allowed and the original 3 yea…
8 Apr 2020

JENSEN v POLICE [2020] NZHC 726

Citation

[2020] NZHC 726
Court

High Court

The nine-month uplift for the burglary was excessive; having regard to authorities the burglary stand-alone starting point should have been 14–15 months and the aggregate starting point no more than 36 months. A youth discount of five months (about 13–14%) should have been applied and the 15% guilty plea discount was appropriate, resulting in a substituted sentence of two years three months' imprisonment on the robbery charge.
6 Apr 2020

LAW v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 717

Citation

[2020] NZHC 717
Court

High Court

The appeal was allowed because the sentencing Judge omitted consideration of personal mitigating factors (the second step of the three-stage approach), producing a manifestly excessive sentence; adjusting the starting point and applying a ten percent mitigation for personal factors and the 20 percent guilty plea discount resulted in a 23-month notional sentence which was substituted and leave to apply for home detention was granted.
22 May 2019

JACKSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1123

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1123
Court

High Court

The unexplained and gross disparity between co-offenders' sentences undermined the appearance of justice; the High Court reduced the appellant's sentence from 25 to 20 months by recalibrating the burglary starting point to 18 months while retaining other uplifts and the guilty plea credit.
31 Oct 2018

GEBREMEDHIN v POLICE [2018] NZHC 2824

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2824
Court

High Court

The Judge erred by treating the bail breach as two breaches and adopting an excessive four month start point; consequent uplifts for drug offending and prior offending were disproportionate; guilty plea discounts were understated. Recalculation with a reduced start point, appropriate uplift and a 20–25% plea discount produced a substituted sentence of three and a half months imprisonment.
24 Jul 2018

HOWLETT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 1850

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1850
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because the end sentence was within the appropriate range and the sentencing Judge did not err in law in declining to give further discount for remorse or in refusing home detention. The Judge reasonably found home detention unsuitable given the offender's recidivism, history of non-compliance, high risk of reoffending and escalation of offending; the off-hand reference to public perception did not amount to an unlawful exclusive focus on denunciation and deterrence, and did not render the sentence manifestly excessive.
22 Aug 2017

PUATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 2006

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2006
Court

High Court

Cumulative sentencing for the methamphetamine-related offences was appropriate because the offences were separate in time and kind and the total sentence of 14 months accurately reflected the overall and escalating criminality; the starting point for methamphetamine was not manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.