New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Objectionable publications

Legal area

Court

7 Dec 2023

LEYCO v NEW ZEALAND CUSTOMS SERVICE [2023] NZHC 3556

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3556
Court

High Court

No error was made in the District Court's sentencing judgment: a seven year global starting point was justified by the volume, severity (predominantly Category A CSEM), distribution, duration and sophistication of offending; the combined five per cent discount for remorse and anticipated hardship was within range; there was insufficient causal connection between childhood abuse and the offending to warrant a background discount; consequently the end sentence of four years and ten months is within the permissible range and the appeal is dismissed.
27 Feb 2023

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND v FILM AND LITERATURE BOARD OF REVIEW [2023] NZHC 319

Citation

[2023] NZHC 319
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the appeal: the Board did not err in law. Depiction of sexual conduct with children does not automatically equal promotion or support under s 3(2); the Moonen finding that material 'normalised' abuse was a fact‑specific evaluative judgment, not a mandatory legal element. The Board lawfully concluded the texts were not deemed objectionable under s 3(2) but were objectionable under the holistic s 3(3)/(4) assessment and permissibly imposed an R18 restriction as a proportionate response to identified harms.
13 Jun 2022

GEORGE v R [2022] NZCA 242

Citation

[2022] NZCA 242
Court

Court of Appeal

Sending a URL/hyperlink that, when clicked, takes the recipient directly to an online copy of an objectionable publication constitutes 'providing access' under s 122(1)(b) and therefore distribution; possession is not a required element of the distribution offence under the Classification Act (and, if needed, electronic possession can be established under s 131(2A)).
17 Aug 2021

R v MITCHELL [2021] NZHC 2175

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2175
Court

High Court

Impose a finite determinate sentence of nine years' imprisonment with a minimum period of six years rather than preventive detention because, despite the offender presenting a high and ongoing risk of sexual reoffending, a lengthy determinate sentence combined with the prospect of intensive treatment and an Extended Supervision Order at expiry was judged sufficient to protect the community and give incentive for rehabilitation, having regard to statutory preference for determinate sentences where adequate.
20 Jul 2021

W (CA642/2019) v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZCA 326

Citation

[2021] NZCA 326
Court

Court of Appeal

Fresh post-sentence evidence was declined because it was not cogent for risk assessment absent qualified professional opinion and could generate conflicting factual inquiries requiring further hearing; the s9(2) threshold was met and on balance of s9(3) factors (serious, premeditated covert offending involving many young children, compulsivity, victim impact and reoffending on bail) the risk posed was assessed as significant and the intrusion of mandatory s16 reporting obligations was proportionate, therefore a registration order under s9(1) was required and the appeal was dismissed.
8 Jul 2020

R v PALENSKI [2020] NZHC 1621

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1621
Court

High Court

Using the Walker J sentence indication (global starting point 14–15 years) and applying R v AM the offending was placed at lower end of category 3 (13 years) but uplifted to reflect additional offending to a 15‑year starting point; mitigating discounts were applied globally (25% for early guilty plea as per indication, plus 5% for remorse/rehabilitation and ~3% for limited mental health mitigation; no credit for good character), producing an end sentence of 10 years' imprisonment; concurrent sentences were imposed for other counts and no extended minimum non‑parole period beyond the statutory…
7 Jul 2020

HUDSON v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 1608

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1608
Court

High Court

The prohibition of FHM and Ralph was lawfully within the Department's powers and, as applied, did not unjustifiably infringe s14 NZBORA because the limitation was prescribed by law, pursued a sufficiently important purpose (prison security, safety and rehabilitation), was rationally connected, no more impairing than reasonably necessary given prison context, and proportionate; APR and POM provisions were not ultra vires and the term 'objectionable' need not import the Classification Act meaning; blanket categorisation based on reasonable sampling and custodial expertise did not amount to unla…
8 Jun 2020

R v MARSHALL [2020] NZHC 1271

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1271
Court

High Court

The High Court determined the appropriate finite sentence was 16 years 6 months imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years, applying R v AM bands (placing the lead offending at the high end of the guideline bands), rejecting preventive detention while recognizing high reoffending risk and need for intensive treatment during a lengthy determinate sentence.
12 May 2020

H (CA36/2020) v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZCA 155

Citation

[2020] NZCA 155
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the proposed grounds did not raise a matter of general or public importance and did not disclose a real risk of miscarriage of justice: the sentencing discounts were within an acceptable range, the causal link between ADHD and the offending was not established on the material before the sentencing courts, and the supplementary medical letters were not shown to be fresh and cogent evidence justifying a second appeal.
18 Oct 2019

H v R [2019] NZHC 2664

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2664
Court

High Court

Threshold under s 200(2)(f) was satisfied because publication of the appellant's name was likely to identify his suppressed family; considering the combination of factors (nature and stigma of offending including bestiality, family's long-term presence in a small community, wife's public-facing pharmacy role and reliance on trust, the children's ages and pivotal life stages, and existing suppression for the family) the Court exercised the residual discretion under s 200(1) to grant permanent name suppression to the appellant.