30 Nov 2023
The High Court found the District Court correctly applied the Moses methodology, the discounts given (35% total including 25% guilty plea) were justified on the facts, there was no evidential basis to award further discounts for mental health or additional credit for EM bail, and the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive; the appeal was dismissed.
18 Jul 2023
The High Court held the offending properly sat in band two of the Nuku bands and the starting point adopted by the District Court was available; a 15% discount for the guilty plea was appropriate given the late change of plea and strength of the Police case; home detention was not available; the end sentence of two years and four months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
13 Jun 2023
The Court held the sentencing Judge's total 25% discount (10% for background including cannabis use, 10% for youth, 5% for good character) was within the permissible range; no separate cannabis addiction discount was required; bail conditions were not restrictive enough to merit a discount; the resulting sentence of four years and six months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
8 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed Hessell argument was not properly before the Court of Appeal and this case is not an appropriate vehicle to resolve the general question; moreover the Court of Appeal reasonably concluded the MPI was not manifestly excessive given the prolonged and violent sexual offending, number of victims, risk of reoffending and need to protect the community.
2 Mar 2023
The High Court held the District Court Judge did not err in principle: the three‑month uplift for offending on bail and the four‑month uplift for prior convictions were within the available range and not double‑counting, the credit for time on EM bail and in custody and discounts for guilty plea and rehabilitation were broadly appropriate (not manifestly inadequate), and home detention was an appropriate and not unduly lenient sentence; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
6 Dec 2022
The High Court held the 26 month starting point was within the available range given aggravating factors; a 20% guilty plea discount was appropriate because pleas were not at the first reasonable opportunity; there was insufficient independent evidence to reduce sentence for addiction or remorse; on totality the 27 month sentence was not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.
19 Jul 2022
The High Court held the sentencing Judge did not err: the combination of a 10% discount for s27 cultural factors, a 25% guilty plea discount and a 5% remorse discount, offsetting a 16% uplift for aggravating factors, produced an end sentence within the permissible range given the seriousness of the offending and the appellant's significant prior record and breach while on supervision; the sentence was therefore not manifestly excessive.
13 May 2022
The High Court found the District Court's 42-month starting point excessive and preferred a 36-month starting point with a 3-month uplift for recent prior firearms offending, but held that the District Court's final sentence of 27 months fell within permissible judicial discretion and was not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.
6 Dec 2021
The sentencing Judge materially erred by failing to properly account for eight and a half months on very restrictive 24‑hour EM bail and by understating remand custody; EM bail credit is a mandatory evaluative mitigating factor to be applied in adjusting the starting point before conversion to home detention; applying a modestly over 50% credit for restrictive EM bail (five months), converting the resulting 18 months imprisonment to nine months home detention and then deducting nine weeks remand yields a substituted sentence of seven months' home detention, which the Court imposed.
23 Nov 2021
The global sentence of two years and three months with a minimum period of 50% is not manifestly excessive because the combined offending—a cold‑blooded conspiracy to have a firearm discharged at a prison officer's home plus a separate threat of grievous bodily harm against the same officer acting in duty—justified the starting point adopted and the mitigations (15% for guilty plea and 10% for personal circumstances) were reasonably applied.