New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joint enterprise

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2021

WHICHMAN v R [2021] NZHC 3463

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3463
Court

High Court

On the admitted facts the elements of aggravated robbery could reasonably be inferred: the pre-visit threatening text, the coordinated visit, the appellant's conduct (including displaying an imitation firearm and participating in intimidation) established a common intention/joint enterprise with the co-defendant to obtain money, so the appellant could have been convicted and no miscarriage of justice occurred; appeal dismissed.
4 Nov 2021

R v FAWCETT [2021] NZHC 2969

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2969
Court

High Court

With the defendant's key interview evidence excluded under s28 the Crown no longer met the evidential test to proceed; there was no realistic prospect of timely additional evidence implicating the defendant in a way that would justify leaving the charge withdrawn under s146, and the defendant's prolonged and prejudicial experience (including intellectual disability and extensive restrictive custody/bail) and rights to finality and trial without undue delay required dismissal under s147 while preserving the Crown's statutory route under s154 for any new and compelling evidence.
21 May 2021

KELLY JAMES EMERY v R [2021] NZCA 158

Citation

[2021] NZCA 158
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the convictions would not be disturbed: prosecutor statements and alleged summing-up errors did not create a real risk the verdicts were affected given the trial Judge's rulings, the context of a single joint enterprise, counsel expressly declining a fuller judicial summary, and the admissibility and probative value of the challenged evidence. Sentences were quashed and remitted for re-sentencing because the appellants should be given the opportunity to present s27 cultural material and because sentencing assessments (starting points and MPIs) required rehearing by the trial co…
13 Sept 2019

JESSE-JAMES WINTER v R [2019] NZSC 98

Citation

[2019] 1 NZLR 710
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal: the 'arming up' text was not properly admissible under s22A because it was not a statement made in furtherance of the joint enterprise when sent to a non-participant, but its wrongful admission did not produce a miscarriage of justice because the trial Judge's directions neutralised any prejudice; and the trial Judge did not err in declining to leave included lesser offences because no included offence was fairly raised on the evidence and any viable alternative would have been trifling or distracting.
15 Apr 2019

R v MOWBRAY [2019] NZHC 820

Citation

[2019] NZHC 820
Court

High Court

Defendant's participation in a premeditated joint plan involving multiple offenders and firearms, which resulted in serious injury, attracted a starting point in the lower end of Taueki Band 3 but, on assessment of his individual culpability (he did not carry or discharge firearms or directly assault the victim), the offending fell into Band 2 with a starting point in the vicinity of eight years; after a 20% reduction for personal factors and a 15% guilty plea discount the appropriate sentence is five years and five months' imprisonment and no MPI is required given assessed risk and lack of p…
17 Oct 2017

KAUR v R [2017] NZCA 465

Citation

[2017] NZCA 465
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave to adduce new evidence was refused because the proposed evidence lacked credibility and cogency and did not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice; the conviction and life sentence with a 17‑year minimum term were upheld because the murder fell within s 104 as a jointly planned offence involving calculated planning and a high level of brutality, and the appellant's culpability justified the sentence.
25 May 2017

AITKENHEAD v R [2017] NZHC 1104

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1104
Court

High Court

The starting point of two years and four months was within the Mako guideline range and therefore available; the appellant's intervention after the robbery did not qualify as a mitigating factor warranting additional discount because it was consistent with his leadership role and did not prevent the violence, so the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the appeal must be dismissed.
3 Mar 2017

SHAILER v R [2017] NZCA 38

Citation

[2017] 2 NZLR 269
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the offending by both appellants — prolonged, extreme, joint assaults and failure to seek medical treatment of a defenceless three year old — fell within the most serious manslaughter cases such that a life starting point was appropriate; Shailer's mental disorders did not materially diminish culpability on the facts; Haerewa was not merely a secondary participant; the sentencing Judge permissibly converted an otherwise appropriate life starting point into a finite global sentence of 17 years to reflect early guilty pleas and personal mitigation and imposed a nine year minimum…
6 Apr 2016

MIDDELDORP v R [2016] NZCA 92

Citation

[2016] NZCA 92
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the sentencing Judge was entitled to treat the fraudulent operations as a joint enterprise and to assess the appellant as the instigator and driving force; given the commercial scale, sophistication and premeditation of the fraud and relevant authorities the three year starting point and resulting sentence were not manifestly excessive.
10 Feb 2016

R v KAUR & SINGH [2016] NZHC 125

Citation

[2016] NZHC 125
Court

High Court

The Court concluded s 104 was engaged because the murder combined deliberate planning (multiple attempts over a two week period and following the victim to a layby) and extreme brutality (a series of forceful cuts to the throat resulting in a gaping, unsurvivable wound and multiple stab wounds); both defendants were equally culpable as joint participants; accordingly life sentences with a minimum term of 17 years before parole eligibility were imposed.