New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Manifest injustice

  • 11 Dec 2023

    R v RICHARDS (Sentencing notes) [2023] NZHC 3625

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 3625
    Court
    High Court

    A life sentence was not imposed because, on balance, the offender's significant mitigating personal circumstances (bereavement context, substance use and sleep deprivation, provocation from prior assault, deprived childhood, demonstrated remorse, restorative justice engagement and clear rehabilitation prospects) rendered a life sentence manifestly unjust; instead the judge imposed a finite sentence of 12 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of 7 years for murder, and a concurrent 2 month term for dangerous driving with a 6 month driving disqualification.

  • 21 Sept 2023

    R v WILSON [2023] NZHC 2640

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 2640
    Court
    High Court

    The offender was convicted of murdering a particularly vulnerable 10-month-old in his sole care and breached a position of trust; life imprisonment was not manifestly unjust given the gravity and culpability, s104 applied but imposing the statutory 17 year minimum would itself be manifestly unjust in this offender's circumstances, therefore life imprisonment with a 15 year minimum non-parole period was imposed.

  • 27 Jan 2023

    DICKEY v R [2023] NZCA 2

    Citation
    [2023] 2 NZLR 405
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court held that for each appellant the sentence of life imprisonment with a mandatory MPI of 10 years was manifestly unjust on the facts. Manifest injustice was found by assessing overall culpability and personal mitigating factors (youth, neurodevelopmental immaturity, cognitive and mental health impairments, traumatic and deprived upbringing, guilty pleas and assistance), and by recognising the disproportionate impact of an indeterminate life sentence coupled with a 10-year MPI and lifetime parole on young offenders. The Court quashed the life sentences and substituted determinate sente…

  • 14 Dec 2022

    R v MORRIS-BAMBER & BAMBER [2022] NZHC 3407

    Citation
    [2022] NZHC 3407
    Court
    High Court

    Section 104 did not apply because the aggravating features (planning, unlawful entry, brutality, vulnerability) did not individually meet the high statutory threshold; both defendants were nevertheless guilty of murder with life sentences: Morris-Bamber received life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 16 years given brutality, home invasion, premeditation and prior serious offending; Bamber received life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 13 years because she incited, aided and materially assisted the murder (providing address, encouragement and deletion of evidenc…

  • 27 Jul 2022

    SIO v R [2022] NZCA 337

    Citation
    [2022] NZCA 337
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Where a murder plainly falls within s104 aggravating categories (victim vulnerability; brutality/cruelty) an MPI of 17 years will not be manifestly unjust unless exceptional, clearly demonstrable mitigating factors place the case outside the statutory band; the judge properly applied that test and the combination of guilty plea and personal circumstances did not render 17 years manifestly unjust in this case.

  • 27 Jun 2022

    SAMSON v R [2022] NZCA 266

    Citation
    [2022] NZCA 266
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court admitted the withheld psychiatric report despite it being prepared before sentencing because the judge had been deprived of expert material he expected and the report materially informed causation and mitigation issues; however, on overall impression the MPI of 17 years was not manifestly unjust because the appellant's severe upbringing and Complex PTSD, while mitigating, did not establish diminished responsibility or impaired reality testing, the murder was premeditated, extremely brutal and callous, and the appellant's serious prior history of domestic violence offset any mitigati…

  • 24 Mar 2022

    SCOTT and SCOTT v RAWENATA and 57 OTHER OWNERSHIP INTERESTS [2022] NZHC 563

    Citation
    [2022] NZHC 563
    Court
    High Court

    The registration of the Māori Land Court Consolidated Order against SA10C/179 was a mistake; s54(1)(a) applies where registration by another person deprives the owner even if that person was not involved in creating the instrument; on the facts it would be manifestly unjust under s55 to leave the first respondents registered because the error arose from third party and Registrar/Māori Land Court mistakes, the Scotts had occupied the land and acted promptly, the first respondents did not occupy or improve the land and did not oppose the application; s56 did not bar relief because there was no…

  • 5 Aug 2021

    R v STEVENS [2021] NZHC 2026

    Citation
    [2021] NZHC 2026
    Court
    High Court

    The Court concluded preventive detention was necessary to protect the community because the offender has a long pattern of qualifying sexual offending, poses a very high risk of reoffending against children, and assessments indicated specialised intervention was required and unlikely to be achieved by a finite sentence alone; the mandatory third-strike requirement to impose 10 years without parole was manifestly unjust in the offender's circumstances, so the court imposed preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years and concurrent seven-year imprisonment for the s…

  • 16 Jul 2021

    R v OTI [2021] NZHC 1800

    Citation
    [2021] NZHC 1800
    Court
    High Court

    Court found s104(1)(e) engaged on the brutality limb because the murder involved progressive, sustained, and targeted violence including use of a drawer as a weapon and repeated head and chest assaults; having fixed a starting point of 17 years, the Court applied a 10% personal mitigation discount (5% for childhood sexual abuse impact and trigger; 5% for genuine remorse and rehabilitation steps) yielding an MPI of 15 years 3 months; the Court further found it would be manifestly unjust to impose a 17-year MPI or life imprisonment without parole under s86E, and therefore sentenced the defendan…

  • 11 Oct 2019

    R v KAIENUA [2019] NZHC 2586

    Citation
    [2019] NZHC 2586
    Court
    High Court

    The court was required by statute to impose the maximum sentences of 14 years on both counts as this was a qualifying third strike, but concluded it would be manifestly unjust to order those sentences be served without parole because of the offender's severe psychological vulnerability from prior traumatic incarceration and the large disparity between the hypothetical non-parole period but for the scheme (two years) and the 14-year statutory term; accordingly the court imposed concurrent 14-year sentences and did not make an order that they be served without parole.