New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Intoxication

Legal area

Court

25 Jul 2023

M (CA434/2022) v R [2023] NZCA 319

Citation

[2023] NZCA 319
Court

Court of Appeal

Conviction appeal dismissed: trial judge's directions on self-defence were fair, accurate and not misleading; no miscarriage of justice. Sentence appeal allowed: life sentence for a 14-year-old was manifestly unjust in the circumstances under the Dickey framework; appropriate disposal is a determinate sentence of 13 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years and two months. Suppression order for O under s202(2)(a) confirmed.
8 Sept 2022

JAYSON WIREMU POIHIPI v R [2022] NZCA 421

Citation

[2022] NZCA 421
Court

Court of Appeal

Application to adduce further evidence on appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because trial counsel's conduct did not amount to error producing a real risk the verdict was unsafe: there was insufficient reliable evidence that psychedelic mushroom or prior methamphetamine use materially affected the appellant's appreciation that death was likely, counsel's advice not to give evidence was properly informed and strategically sound given risks to credibility, and no special failure to accommodate the appellant's vulnerabilities was established.
10 Dec 2021

COTTER v POLICE [2021] NZHC 1532

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1532
Court

High Court

The Court held the trial Judge properly accepted the complainant's contemporaneous statement and the evidence of the constable as reliable; defence case and key points about intoxication, retraction and aggressor status had been put to the complainant and explored at trial; alleged failures of counsel were tactical or peripheral and did not create a real risk that the verdict was affected; Ms Rasmussen's affidavit was neither fresh nor material; accordingly no miscarriage of justice occurred and the appeal was dismissed.
14 Oct 2021

R v MATCHITT [2021] NZHC 2747

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2747
Court

High Court

The defendant committed an extremely violent, drunken assault on a frail 77‑year‑old in his own home that caused severe head injuries and death; applying Taueki bands, the offending is placed between band two and three yielding a nine‑year starting point, uplifted six months for prior violent history and reduced by 21 months for personal mitigation (12 months for upbringing and alcohol addiction; nine months for restrictive bail compliance), producing an end sentence of seven years nine months with a minimum non‑parole period of three years nine months because early release after one third wo…
13 May 2021

MUTSAMWIRA v R [2021] NZCA 177

Citation

[2021] NZCA 177
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held counsel did not act incompetently: the expert evidence lacked an evidential foundation because the appellant would not corroborate the key factual premise (drug consumption) and medical records did not support the claim; calling the expert and the appellant would have posed substantial risks likely to damage credibility; the appellant's decision not to give evidence was informed and voluntary based on proper advice; and the Judge's intoxication direction was adequate. Accordingly the conviction stands and the appeal is dismissed.
3 Dec 2020

SAMATUA (aka SOLOMONA) v POLICE [2020] NZHC 3175

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3175
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Judge was entitled to accept the police evidence and infer conscious, deliberate conduct from the appellant's words and movements; those findings were open on the evidence and did not constitute a miscarriage of justice, so the conviction for assault stands.
18 Aug 2020

R v Te Maru [2020] NZHC 2084

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2084
Court

High Court

Life imprisonment was appropriate because the offender knowingly procured and used a deadly weapon after a break in the fighting, provocation (damage to the car) did not sufficiently reduce culpability to displace the statutory presumption, the offender did not suffer a causative severe mental impairment, intoxication could not mitigate, and the overall circumstances did not meet the high threshold of manifest injustice; accordingly impose life with minimum period 10 years.
13 May 2020

TE HIKO v R [2020] NZCA 159

Citation

[2020] NZCA 159
Court

Court of Appeal

Application for recall was declined because applicant failed to establish any fundamental procedural error in the appellate process, there was no substantial miscarriage of justice that required correction, and no necessity to recall the Court's earlier dismissal; allegations about appellate counsel's conduct did not meet the high threshold for recall and fresh evidence is not a basis for recall in this Court.
30 Apr 2020

R v DAVIES [2020] NZHC 903

Citation

[2020] NZHC 903
Court

High Court

Starting point set at six and a half years imprisonment (analogous to Taueki band 2 adjusted for death and aggravating factors). No discrete discount for remorse (not exceptional). Full 25% reduction applied for early written indication of willingness to plead to manslaughter. A 15% reduction applied for severe ill-health likely to make imprisonment disproportionately severe. Intoxication not mitigating. Resulting sentence fixed at four years and two months' imprisonment.
7 Apr 2020

CAPSTICK v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 714

Citation

[2020] NZHC 714
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because the Judge's starting point for the lead dangerous driving offence was within the correct range and the six‑month uplift for offending while on bail and subject to intensive supervision was justified by the offender's conduct, prior history and the serious risk and harm caused; totality adjustments had been applied so the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive.