New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Intensive supervision

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2023

LEE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2906

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2906
Court

High Court

The District Court erred by failing to apply the s 13 presumption in favour of a fine and by not making the requisite s 14 finding that the appellant lacked means to pay; the imposition of community work and intensive supervision was therefore wrong in principle and the substitution of community work for remitted fines was invalid because the statutory procedures in the Summary Proceedings Act were not followed; the correct sentence is a $600 fine and the remitted $5,000 fines are restored.
28 Aug 2023

BOYD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2363

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2363
Court

High Court

Section 180 CPA did not authorise the District Court Judge to replace the community-based intensive supervision sentence with imprisonment because the original supervision sentence was lawfully open and not expressly prohibited by statute despite practical impossibility; the correct remedies were applications under s54K or consideration of home detention under s80I, and there was no power for the Judge to invoke s180 on her own motion in the circumstances, so the replacement custodial sentence was unlawful and must be quashed and the matter remitted for re-sentencing.
22 Aug 2023

PARISH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2272

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2272
Court

High Court

The appellate court affirmed imprisonment because the end sentence was within the permissible range and a non‑custodial outcome was inappropriate given the applicant's repeated breaches of curfew/home detention and intensive supervision, Corrections' assessment that he was unsuitable for EM, absence of information about address/occupant/conditions/consent, and the high need for deterrence and accountability; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
7 Aug 2023

CRUDEN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2073

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2073
Court

High Court

The High Court concluded the District Court did not err: the discounts granted were generous when quantified against the 24 month starting point, ADHD was recognised and accounted for but drug addiction and the hostage incident were not shown to be causative of the offending, and intensive supervision was inappropriate given the seriousness of the offending and the appellant's demonstrated non‑compliance; therefore the 26 month sentence was not manifestly excessive.
4 Apr 2023

R v YOUNES (Sentencing Notes) [2023] NZHC 744

Citation

[2023] NZHC 744
Court

High Court

Starting point set at 10 months' imprisonment based on comparative authorities and the seriousness of the principal offence plus the reasonably significant level of assistance and witness intimidation; applied cumulative discounts totalling 50% (20% for s27/cultural nexus, 20% for early guilty plea, 5% for genuine remorse, 5% for youth) reducing the sentence to five months imprisonment, then converted to the least restrictive appropriate outcome: two and a half months community detention and twelve months intensive supervision with conditions specified in the PAC report.
28 Feb 2023

HOEFHAMER v R [2023] NZHC 348

Citation

[2023] NZHC 348
Court

High Court

The High Court held the sentence was within range and not manifestly excessive: the combined 30% reduction for addiction and rehabilitation (which could have been separated) together with other discounts produced an appropriate overall discount; the Judge had considered least restrictive options and deterrence was properly weighted given the substantial quantity of methamphetamine (six times the presumption). The community detention (6 months), 18 months intensive supervision and 100 hours community work was upheld; appeal dismissed.
24 Feb 2023

FOLSTER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 292

Citation

[2023] NZHC 292
Court

High Court

There was insufficient evidence that alcohol was connected to the offending or to the appellant's prior convictions; therefore the s 54I threshold was not met for a no-alcohol special condition because no specific significant risk linked to alcohol was shown and no evidence that that condition would reduce the likelihood of reoffending through rehabilitation; the no-alcohol condition was set aside.
24 Feb 2023

WHAREWHITI v R [2023] NZCA 29

Citation

[2023] NZCA 29
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal because the sentencing courts underweighted positive rehabilitative material and youth-related factors contained in the pre-sentence and cultural reports, producing an unjustifiable custodial outcome and disparity with co-offenders; given time already served the appropriate disposition is to quash the prison sentence and impose 12 months intensive supervision with conditions to facilitate rehabilitation.
17 Nov 2022

STAIGER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 3012

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3012
Court

High Court

The appeal was allowed in part because the District Court erred by not accounting for the 4.75 hours of community work already completed when imposing a substitute sentence under s68(4); the substituted sentence was amended to 95.25 hours community work. Otherwise there was no material error: the 100-hour substitute sentence was within the available range, the Judge had considered the reports and tailored concurrent community-based interventions, and declining the s94 application was within discretion given the appellant's failure to complete prior community work.
21 Oct 2022

R v PETERSEN & HEMA [2022] NZHC 2742

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2742
Court

High Court

Court set starting points (Petersen two years two months; Hema 16 months), applied 20% guilty plea discount and 15% personal mitigation discount to each, declined to uplift for prior convictions, and imposed a non-custodial sentence for Petersen (commuted to eight months home detention) and intensive supervision for Hema (12 months), and ordered reparation of $650 each to the victim.