New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Harmful digital communications

Legal area

Court

25 Aug 2022

POLOSAK v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 2131

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2131
Court

High Court

The District Court's assessment was correct: the offending was premeditated, persistent and sufficiently grave to merit conviction and the consequences of conviction were not out of proportion to gravity; the appellant's allegations of being a victim of abuse did not materially mitigate the gravity on the available evidence; the extreme hardship threshold for suppression was not met; appeal dismissed.
14 Dec 2021

WHITEHEAD v POLICE [2021] NZHC 3421

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3421
Court

High Court

The Protection Order was quashed because the sentencing Judge failed to conduct the required necessity assessment under s123B and related authorities, and the evidence established there was no realistic risk of further family-violence-type offending (the appellant no longer had access to the victim's accounts), making the Order unnecessary and manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
18 Dec 2020

ANNAND v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 3416

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3416
Court

High Court

The 8 May 2020 minute did not constitute a judicial dismissal under s147; the trial judge's factual findings that the email caused serious emotional distress and that appellant intended to cause harm were supported by credible evidence (victim's testimony and Constable Christie's account); the High Court will not overturn credibility assessments absent miscarriage of justice; NZBORA s14 did not override the Harmful Digital Communications Act given s4; consequences for travel did not meet discharge without conviction threshold; therefore no miscarriage of justice and appeal dismissed.
13 Oct 2020

P (CA550/2019) v R [2020] NZCA 482

Citation

[2020] NZCA 482
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time granted but fresh evidence not admitted; the guilty plea and conviction stand because legal advice received was correct and the plea was voluntary relying on subsequent counsel, the police investigation did not demonstrate miscarriage, and the sentencing judge correctly applied the test for discharge without conviction; appeal dismissed.
30 Sept 2019

VUJCICH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2482

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2482
Court

High Court

The District Court starting point of 18 months was excessive given a single incident and no prior breaches; the six month uplift for Instagram conduct was excessive and should be limited to three months; after adjustments (15 months starting point, 3 months good character credit, 25% guilty plea discount) the appropriate custodial sentence was nine months, converted at the usual 50% factor to four and a half months home detention; additional credit for a Stopping Violence course beyond good character credit was not warranted.
2 Mar 2018

R v BLACKWOOD [2018] NZHC 306

Citation

[2018] NZHC 306
Court

High Court

Adopted a lead starting point of three years and six months for the blackmail offences, uplifted six months to an aggregate starting point of four years imprisonment to reflect the additional harmful digital communications and intimidation charges; applied a 20% mitigation (10 months) for mental health and youth, a further 10% (4 months) for remorse, and a 20% (7 months) discount for a guilty plea, resulting in a final effective sentence of two years and three months imprisonment on the blackmail charges to be served concurrently with six months (harmful digital communications) and one month…
1 Dec 2017

BUTLER v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2972

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2972
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed and the custodial sentence upheld because the offending involved significant aggravating features—prior serious sexual offending against the victim, re-victimisation long after the original offending, and a history of home detention with limited deterrent effect—such that denunciation and a term of imprisonment were justified notwithstanding the private nature of the message and distinctions from Brittin.
2 Oct 2017

BRITTIN v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2410

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2410
Court

High Court

The High Court held the 18 month starting point was manifestly excessive and reduced the appropriate starting point to 12 months (yielding a seven month prison sentence after credits); the judge erred in refusing home detention by giving undue primacy to deterrence, and the appellant was granted leave to apply to the District Court under s80I for substitution of a home detention sentence.