New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Parole act interpretation

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2021

LLOYD ALEXANDER MCINTOSH v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZSC 142

Citation

[2021] NZSC 142
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant's arguments lacked sufficient prospects of success; the correct construction of s 107IAA(1)(d) requires acceptance/remorse/understanding to be present to a sufficient degree to materially mitigate risk; identified errors were inconsequential to the outcome and the evidence justified the High Court's satisfaction that the offender posed a high risk of committing a relevant sexual offence.
19 Dec 2018

PANIORA v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZCA 607 [19 December 2018]

Citation

[2018] NZCA 607
Court

Court of Appeal

The High Court correctly exercised its evaluative discretion to order the maximum 10-year ESO because the offender's extensive violent history, lack of insight or remorse, refusal to engage in treatment, and expert evidence of high/very high future risk justified the statutory maximum as the minimum necessary to protect the community; the court may assess risk beyond assessors' five-year predictive matrices; and prior time under interim IMC is a permissive factor but does not prevent the court specifying a 12-month maximum IMC, with the Parole Board retaining discretion to impose a shorter pe…
15 Dec 2016

MARINO v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZHC 3074

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3074
Court

High Court

The Court held the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Parole Act operates retrospectively under the declaratory theory, rejecting the Chief Executive's argument for prospective-only effect; reliance on earlier (incorrect) authority does not avoid strict liability for false imprisonment, and the applicants are entitled to summary judgment on liability for the periods they were detained beyond their lawful sentences.
3 Sept 2012

STEWART MURRAY WILSON V NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD HC CHCH CIV 2012-409-1722

Citation

openlaw-a3e0ac25_fedc_4e0d_8ac5_1f2a43e66d81.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that all challenged parole conditions except Corrections' detailed reintegration programme were authorised by s15(2) of the Parole Act and were reasonable and justifiable under s5 NZBORA; Corrections' reintegration programme as drafted exceeded the Board's authorised conditions, risked de facto detention and likely breached NZBORA, and must be remitted to the Parole Board for reconsideration.
30 May 2012

FORREST V CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COA CA271/2012

Citation

COA CA271/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

The cumulative sentences form a notional single sentence under the Parole Act so the total exceeds 24 months and is long-term, rendering s86(1) inapplicable; given the substantial unexplained delay and the lack of merit in the proposed appeal, the Court refused to grant an extension of time.
3 May 2010

GRAHAM ASHLEY ROBERT PALMER V DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2010-404-2094

Citation

openlaw-63b9e58e_4d70_4006_9bec_5199528694b4.pdf
Court

High Court

Detention at Manukau Police Station from the evening of 17 January 2008 until 0900 hrs on 18 January 2008 was custody under ss315-316 of the Crimes Act but was not remand pursuant to a court order nor detention of a type described in s91 of the Parole Act 2002; therefore it did not qualify as pre-sentence detention deductible under s90 and the calculated release date remains 10 May 2010; the judicial review application is dismissed.
19 Feb 2008

ALAN IVO GREER V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA CA45/08

Citation

openlaw-e248586d_772d_47fd_af56_fe71696d8bd7.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Morgan v Superintendent governs; s86(2) of the Parole Act 2002 applies to the appellant so there is no mandatory two-thirds release for his sentence and his continued detention is lawful; issues about Parole Board decision-making and conditions should be pursued by judicial review rather than habeas corpus.

New Zealand Case Law

LLOYD ALEXANDER MCINTOSH v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZSC 142

PANIORA v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZCA 607 [19 December 2018]

MARINO v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZHC 3074

STEWART MURRAY WILSON V NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD HC CHCH CIV 2012-409-1722

FORREST V CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COA CA271/2012

GRAHAM ASHLEY ROBERT PALMER V DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2010-404-2094

ALAN IVO GREER V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL CA CA45/08