New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Parole act 2002 interpretation

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2019

PRINCE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 3381 [18 December 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3381
Court

High Court

The phrase 'sentence expiry date' must be read to mean the date on which the offender actually ceased to be subject to the sentence (i.e. the date the sentence, as imposed or substituted on appeal, took effect), and cannot be a date preceding the imposition of the sentence; applying that construing, Prince's sentence expiry date was 7 June 2019 and the release conditions expired six months later on 7 December 2019.
5 Sept 2019

YURAK v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 2206

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2206
Court

High Court

Where an offender was sentenced to imprisonment, had that sentence converted to home detention and later re-sentenced to imprisonment for the same offending, the period spent serving the original term of imprisonment must be taken into account in calculating the total period of detention and the statutory release date; the mechanical calculation of pre-sentence detention and key dates is for the Department of Corrections under the Parole Act (ss88,90–92) and not for the re-sentencing judge, and statutes must be read purposively and consistently with s22 NZBORA to avoid arbitrary detention.
18 Apr 2018

LEWIS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZCA 99 [18 April 2018]

Citation

[2018] NZCA 99
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the health assessor's report together with her oral evidence sufficiently addressed the statutory question of whether there was a high risk the offender would commit a 'relevant sexual offence' under s107F(2A)(a)(ii) and s107IAA(1); the Judge's independent assessment that the statutory criteria were met and that an ESO for seven years was appropriate was open on the evidence; the application to adduce emails as fresh evidence was declined as not cogent.
30 Aug 2017

WONG v THE NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD [2017] NZHC 2098

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2098
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the judicial review because the Parole Board lawfully conducted a fresh statutory assessment of undue risk, appropriately considered all relevant material (including RoC*RoI as one factor), observed statutory natural justice safeguards, avoided bias, did not unlawfully delegate its function or adjudicate acquitted matters, and reached a decision that was open to it on the evidence and law.
27 Sept 2010

MORGAN V THE GENERAL MANAGER MT EDEN PRISON HC AK CIV-2010-404-6272

Citation

openlaw-c6c14e08_9838_4d87_96ad_a39d96787d9a.pdf
Court

High Court

The final recall order under s66(1) Parole Act 2002 established lawful detention because the Board was satisfied on reasonable grounds of relevant statutory grounds; recall is continuation of the original life sentence not further punishment and does not breach NZBORA rights asserted, accordingly habeas corpus application is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

PRINCE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 3381 [18 December 2019]

YURAK v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 2206

LEWIS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZCA 99 [18 April 2018]

WONG v THE NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD [2017] NZHC 2098

MORGAN V THE GENERAL MANAGER MT EDEN PRISON HC AK CIV-2010-404-6272