New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of objectionable material

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2023

BANNAN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZCA 227 [13 June 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZCA 227
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the appellant's historical and recent grooming and possession offences together constituted a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending, the s107IAA criteria for high risk were satisfied (intense drive, predilection, limited self-regulation and lack of full acceptance of responsibility), and a five year extended supervision order was the minimum period required to protect the community; appeal dismissed.
28 Feb 2023

GORDON-STABLES v R [2023] NZHC 345

Citation

[2023] NZHC 345
Court

High Court

The District Court judge erred by focusing on the general abhorrence of child exploitation material rather than the specific circumstances and low gravity of the appellant's offending; given the appellant's health, cognitive limitations, lack of prior convictions, low culpability, and real risk that conviction would bar employment and independence, the consequences of conviction were out of proportion to the offence and a discharge without conviction was required.
2 Dec 2022

RE GO TO COLLECTION LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) [2022] NZHC 3225 [2 December 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3225
Court

High Court

The District Court Judge erred by focusing on general moral opprobrium rather than the appellant's specific circumstances; the offending was at the low end of the spectrum for s131 offences and the direct and indirect consequences of conviction (likely exclusion from employment and independent living given health and disability) would be out of proportion to that low gravity; appeal allowed, conviction quashed and discharge without conviction granted.
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…
13 Dec 2019

HEPPLESTON v R [2019] NZHC 3297

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3297
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court did not err in finding the proposed residence unsuitable for home detention because its immediate proximity to a children's playground, combined with the appellant's moderate risk of sexual offending and relevant offending history including importation of a child sex doll and possession of numerous child sexual abuse images, meant community protection and denunciation required imprisonment; the 18 month sentence was therefore upheld.
1 Jul 2019

TERRIS v POLICE [2019] NZHC 1525

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1525
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted but the High Court held there was no material sentencing error: the judge had been entitled to impose a short prison term given the offending, the offender's extensive criminal history, lack of suitable home detention options, and that avoiding mandatory CSOR registration was not a permissible basis to alter the appropriate sentence; appeal dismissed.
25 Jun 2019

R v MARTIN [2019] NZHC 1461

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1461
Court

High Court

Preventive detention was declined because, despite a high assessed risk, the combination of an early guilty plea, demonstrable willingness to undertake comprehensive specialised treatment, a lengthy nine‑year gap since the prior offending, the availability of extended supervision post‑release, the defendant's age and the ability to impose a lengthy finite sentence provided adequate protection of the public; accordingly a finite sentence of six years' imprisonment (concurrent) with parole eligibility after serving half was appropriate.
8 Jun 2018

JOLLY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 1343

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1343
Court

High Court

The District Court sentence was quashed because the judge failed to allow a guilty plea discount; on rehearing the Court set a starting point of 18 months for possession of objectionable material reduced by 25% to 13 months, set a 14‑month starting point for the ESO breach reduced by 25% to 10 months (after uplift for prior breaches) and six months concurrent for the reporting breach, producing a total effective sentence of 23 months; the allegation of judicial bias was rejected under the Saxmere test as the errors identified did not demonstrate an inability to decide the case on its merits.
1 Jun 2018

R v PARKINSON [2018] NZHC 1287

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1287
Court

High Court

Court set separate starting points for two groups of offending (4 years for offences against J and P; 4.5 years for offences against C and S), aggregated to 8.5 years then reduced by 18 months for totality to 7 years, and further reduced by 12 months for guilty plea to reach a final concurrent sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 3 years; adjustments balanced aggravating factors (victim age and vulnerability, breach of trust, intrusiveness, repetition, grooming/predation, harm) against mitigating factors (remorse, mental health, childhood abuse, engagement…