New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indecent communication

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2022

HENG v R [2022] NZHC 2232

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2232
Court

High Court

The Court found the complainant's EVI and oral evidence established, beyond reasonable doubt, attempts by the appellant to effect oral sexual connection but did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that actual insertion/penetration occurred because the EVI contained interviewer-led reformulations and the complainant consistently stated she closed or moved her mouth; accordingly the conviction for sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection could not stand but the evidence supported substitution with a conviction for attempted sexual violation under s234(2) CPA; the other convictions for i…
31 Mar 2021

BLOMFIELD v R [2021] NZCA 102

Citation

[2021] NZCA 102
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the global starting point of four years' imprisonment was within range for offending of moderate culpability given the significant age gap, multiple occasions of penetrative and oral sex, the circumstances of access, and the complainant's vulnerability; mitigating discounts were rightly limited and the end sentence of three years and eleven months was not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.
6 Oct 2020

R v CASH [2020] NZHC 2629

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2629
Court

High Court

Judge set a kidnapping starting point of 4.5 years, uplifted 18 months for related sexual offending and six months for offending while on bail to reach a 6.5 year starting point; applied a 10% guilty plea discount (eight months) resulting in a global sentence of five years and ten months' imprisonment; ordered concurrent sentences on all counts so total custody term is five years ten months and imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of three years before parole eligibility.
30 Aug 2019

R v ASHBY [2019] NZHC 2156

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2156
Court

High Court

The Court imposed a determinate sentence of 11 years and 8 months' imprisonment with a minimum period of 5 years and 9 months, finding preventive detention unnecessary because, despite high current risk factors and serious prior offending, the offender showed sufficient rehabilitative prospects, willingness to engage in intensive sexual offender treatment, youth, and the availability of extended supervision options such that a lengthy determinate sentence with a 50% minimum would adequately protect the community.
5 Jun 2019

HOGG v R [2019] NZHC 1254

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1254
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Facebook Messenger communications were lawfully obtained under a warrant that authorised searching electronic devices capable of storing photos, and the preliminary inspection of Messenger to locate possible images did not exceed the warrant's scope; alternatively the evidence would not be excluded under s30. The court further held the charged messages were objectively indecent under s124A on their plain meaning and upheld the conviction.

New Zealand Case Law

HENG v R [2022] NZHC 2232

BLOMFIELD v R [2021] NZCA 102

R v CASH [2020] NZHC 2629

R v ASHBY [2019] NZHC 2156

HOGG v R [2019] NZHC 1254