New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Parole eligibility

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2023

R v WHENUAROA [2023] NZHC 3620

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3620
Court

High Court

Life imprisonment was imposed. The judge set a starting point of 14 years for the murder based on the brutal frenzied hammer attack in the victim's home, uplifted one year to 15 years to reflect the arson and post-offence conduct, declined to apply s104 as the high threshold was not met, then reduced the minimum by two years (18 months credit for guilty plea saved trial anguish and six months for personal mitigation including remorse, youth, lack of prior offending and rehabilitation prospects) resulting in a minimum period of 13 years before eligibility to apply for parole.
5 Sept 2023

GEMMELL v R [2023] NZCA 420

Citation

[2023] NZCA 420
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal, reduced the starting point and overall sentence and set aside the non-parole order because (a) the appellant's role was materially less than his co-offender warranting a lower starting point; (b) a discount for extended restrictive EM bail was warranted despite limited late breaches; and (c) applying the three strikes non-parole order to the appellant while his co-offender, who played the lead role, remained eligible for parole post-repeal produced a disproportionate result breaching s9 NZBORA; accordingly sentence of 4 years 2 months was quashed and replaced wit…
29 May 2023

TONI LEIGH HORE v R [2023] NZHC 1356

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1356
Court

High Court

The District Court judge miscalculated the remaining custodial time by deducting time served from the full 22 month term instead of calculating actual custodial time under Parole Act s86 (half of 22 months = 11 months) then deducting time already served; applying the orthodox practice of imposing a home detention term equivalent to the actual custodial time left yields a substituted sentence of four months' home detention, and the appeal is allowed to correct that error.
1 May 2023

WILSON v NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD [2023] NZHC 1003

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1003
Court

High Court

The Department's preparation and provision of a psychological report did not constitute an independent exercise of reviewable statutory power; the Parole Board lawfully and reasonably considered that report and other material, afforded the applicant opportunity to respond, and properly exercised its statutory discretion under Parole Act s28(2) to require reintegrative testing and to decline release to Gisborne; accordingly the judicial review application is dismissed.
28 Apr 2023

R v KAMETA [2023] NZHC 965

Citation

[2023] NZHC 965
Court

High Court

Adopted a starting point of eight years four months imprisonment, applied 25% credit for guilty pleas (two years one month) and an additional one year (12%) for personal mitigation informed by the s27 report, producing an effective concurrent sentence of five years three months; declined to impose a minimum period because defendant was not an instigator and surrendered early.
28 Feb 2023

PAUL NILS HERLUND v R [2023] NZSC 9

Citation

[2023] NZSC 9
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly found the pleas were informed and voluntary, trial counsel did not pressure the applicant, the sentencing uplift did not adversely affect the applicant compared with the sentence indication, the parole and custody-based defences lacked merit, and the application raised no matter of general or public importance nor a real risk of miscarriage of justice.
10 Feb 2023

HURA v R [2023] NZCA 7

Citation

[2023] NZCA 7
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the sentencing judges did not undertake the required fact-specific s86 analysis and instead applied the then-orthodox 50% MPI as routine; given the lengthy global sentences imposed, the standard one-third parole eligibility was sufficient to achieve the s86(2) sentencing purposes in each case and there was no evidence that the longer MPIs were required to protect the community; accordingly, despite substantial delay the strength of the appeals and the liberty interest justified granting extensions of time and setting aside the 50% MPIs.
15 Dec 2022

ALLEN v R [2022] NZCA 630

Citation

[2022] NZCA 630
Court

Court of Appeal

A mandatory three‑strikes sentence breaches s9 only if it is cruel or disproportionately severe compared with the sentence that would properly have been imposed but for the regime, taking into account correct starting point, appropriate discounts (avoiding double benefit for plea concessions), offender's personal circumstances and parole impact; applying those principles here the Court found the correct 'but for' end sentence was three years, the parole impact was not disproportionate, and therefore the seven-year mandatory sentence did not breach s9; fresh Parole Board material was admitted…
9 Dec 2022

SHEERS v R [2022] NZCA 618

Citation

[2022] NZCA 618
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the 14-year maximum sentence imposed under s86D(2) was disproportionately severe and breached s9 NZBORA given the large absolute disparity with the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed and the appellant's FASD substantially reducing culpability; the 14-year sentence was quashed and a sentence of three years' imprisonment substituted.
6 Dec 2022

R v FUALAU [2022] NZHC 3252

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3252
Court

High Court

s 104 was engaged on the basis of the extreme brutality and callousness of multiple machete blows; victim vulnerability was insufficiently established to rely on s 104(1)(g). A baseline minimum of 16 years was adopted, uplifted by six months for recent violent offending and breach of parole to 16.5 years, reduced by an 18 month plea discount to 15 years. Imposing the 17 year statutory floor would be manifestly unjust because it would ignore the value of the early plea; therefore the minimum term set was 15 years.