New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Minimum period of imprisonment (s86)

Legal area

Court

13 Jul 2023

R v TAPARA-TAIPARI [2023] NZHC 1812

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1812
Court

High Court

Starting point of 11 years 3 months was appropriate given the defendant's active role in the Waikeria Prison riot; after a 25% guilty‑plea discount and further reductions (total discount 5 years) the global sentence imposed is six years three months imprisonment to be served concurrently on the representative charges; no minimum term under s86 Sentencing Act 2002 was imposed because the summary of facts did not disclose sufficient material to justify it.
28 Oct 2022

R v MCDONALD [2022] NZHC 2808

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2808
Court

High Court

Offending involved three aggravating features (use of a firearm, serious injury, premeditation) placing it in upper Band 2; appropriate starting point set at eight years; uplift of nine months for prior strike-type convictions; mitigations allowed of 17% (18 months) for cultural factors, compensation and surrender of firearms; further deduction of 12 months for time on restrictive EM bail; resulting end sentence 75 months (6 years 3 months) imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 33 months (2 years 9 months, 44% of the term).
15 Jul 2022

R v ORMSBY [2022] NZHC 1711

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1711
Court

High Court

Adopt Downs J's starting point of four years for money laundering, uplift by six months for cannabis possession and four months for relevant prior convictions to reach 4 years 10 months; apply a 25% guilty plea discount for parity with co-defendants and a 12% discount for cultural and personal mitigation, yielding a total 37% reduction to a three year sentence; impose a minimum period of imprisonment of one year and six months (50%) because a one year non‑parole period would be insufficient to achieve accountability, denunciation and deterrence in light of the offending and authority in Chai…
12 Jul 2021

NITIN PRATAP v R [2021] NZCA 308

Citation

[2021] NZCA 308
Court

Court of Appeal

Quantity placed offending in band 5 but appellant's operation was small scale; despite criteria of a leading role being met, comparative smallness of the enterprise placed culpability at the lower end of band 5 (appropriate starting point 12–13 years). The District Court's 14-year starting point was excessive; a six-month discount for restrictive EM bail was proper but an additional discount for delay double-counted the same factor. A 10% discount for prior good character was appropriate. Resulting substituted sentence: 11 years 3 months and no minimum period under s86(2).
8 Jul 2021

R v BREEN MAKIRI [2021] NZHC 1701

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1701
Court

High Court

Starting point of eight years six months reduced by a total of 35% (15% guilty plea plus a 20% reduction for traumatic brain injury, cultural factors and vulnerability) because the offender's organic personality disorder materially reduced culpability and made deterrence less apt; resulting end sentence five years six months on attempted murder, with 12 months concurrent for wounding; no minimum non-parole period ordered under s 86; Parole Board to assess release and conditions.
22 Jun 2021

R v PATRYK LUKASIK & ANOR [2021] NZHC 1494

Citation

[2012] 3 NZLR 115
Court

High Court

Court applied Zhang principles using quantity (4 kg) and role to set starting points, adjusted for parity with related sentence of co-defendant, allowed mitigation discounts for foreign national status and good character (15% for Wilk; combined 12%+5% for Lukasik), declined additional discount for alleged treatment abroad absent objective evidence, accounted for pre-extradition detention by reserving that credit be applied by operation of law, and imposed minimum periods of imprisonment of 40% because the default term was insufficient to meet deterrence and denunciation objectives.
11 Feb 2021

R v KINGI & ORS [2021] NZHC 140

Citation

[2021] NZHC 140
Court

High Court

Starting points were set at seven years for the organiser (Kingi) and six years six months for the co-offenders, reduced by a full 25% for guilty pleas and approximately 15% for proven cultural and social deprivation (total ~40% reduction); Burns received a three month uplift for prior violent convictions; no minimum period under s86(2) was imposed because the sentencing objectives were met without it; aggravated robbery sentences ordered to be served concurrently, producing final terms of imprisonment of 4 years 2 months for Kingi, 4 years for Burns, and 3 years 10 months for Hubbard.
4 Sept 2020

R v FORE & ORS [2020] NZHC 2290

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2290
Court

High Court

For gang-related armed robbery that resulted in death where defendants are parties but not established leaders or instrumental actors, an appropriate general starting point is 8–9 years for participants; apply 25% guilty plea credit and allow approximately 10% discount for demonstrated cultural deprivation where causative; uplift for separate wounding and driving offending applied where proven; do not impose a minimum period under s86 absent clear necessity; adjust for totality to avoid excessive cumulative punishment. Application of these principles produced final sentences: Rippon 6 years 6…
14 Aug 2018

R v McArley [2018] NZHC 2073

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2073
Court

High Court

The appropriate global starting point for the two supply charges (total 980g methamphetamine) was fixed at 10 years 8 months, uplifted by 4 months for escape, producing an overall starting point of 11 years; after allowing a two-year (24 month) discount for guilty pleas the determinate sentence is nine years' imprisonment; sentences on all counts are to be served concurrently; no minimum period of imprisonment under s86 Sentencing Act 2002 was imposed given the encouraging pre-sentence report, genuine remorse, personal circumstances (recent deportation) and Crown not seeking a minimum term.
10 May 2018

R v AGU [2018] NZCA 147

Citation

[2018] NZCA 147
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentencing Judge lawfully assessed Mr Agu's limited and vulnerable role as a 'catcher', applied Fatu and the Sentencing Act principles, and that a 16 year sentence without a minimum period was within the available range and not manifestly inadequate; the Judge did not err in declining to impose a minimum period under s86 given his factual findings.