New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Re-sentencing

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2023

HEPBURN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 475

Citation

[2023] NZHC 475
Court

High Court

The District Court's cumulative approach produced an overall sentence that offended the totality principle and was manifestly excessive; the appropriate substituted sentence is imprisonment for four years and seven months with a driving disqualification of one and a half years from release, reparation orders to stand, and specified allocations of cumulative and concurrent terms as set out in the judgment.
24 Nov 2022

WILSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 3087

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3087
Court

High Court

The High Court found the district court's starting point of nine months for the totality of offending was within range given the principal assault and multiple assaults on police; the cumulative three month re-sentence for earlier offending was appropriate given the offender's persistent breaches and history; the 20% plea discount was justified by timing and strength of evidence; no additional credit was warranted for time on restrictive bail or pre-sentence custody; accordingly there was no error rendering the sentence manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
19 Jul 2021

HUTTON v R [2021] NZHC 1817

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1817
Court

High Court

When a sentencing relies on facts that are disputed, the court must follow s24 Sentencing Act 2002 procedures; Judge Roberts accepted and used disputed material from the Crown's summary (including particulars of withdrawn charges) without conducting a s24 contested facts process, producing a sentencing miscarriage that required quashing and remittal for re-sentencing.
17 Jun 2021

SEAN PATRICK BRODERICK v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 1918

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1918
Court

High Court

The High Court held that the re-sentencing Judge was entitled to reject discounts for remorse and rehabilitation given the subsequent breach and offending, but erred by failing to allow any discount for personal and cultural factors under s27; applying a 15% adjustment for those factors (in addition to the 25% guilty plea credit) and adding two months for the new offences produced an appropriate global sentence of 19 months' imprisonment, quashing the 23 month sentence and confirming cancellation of the earlier home detention.
3 Jun 2021

HARDING-RERITI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 1296

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1296
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal out of time was granted; the District Court sentence was set aside and the 12 months' imprisonment was reimposed concurrently on the charges, expressly without any standard or special release conditions, because the sentencing Judge did not impose such conditions and they did not apply by operation of law under Sentencing Act s93(1), so the record required correction.
7 Aug 2019

ERU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC `1913

Citation

ERU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC `1913
Court

High Court

The appeal is allowed because counsel error and apparent double counting of aggravating features in sentencing produced a manifestly excessive sentence; the original sentence of two years and six months is set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Court for re-sentencing with directions to take into account the factors identified in this judgment.
9 May 2018

TESEMA v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 1002

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1002
Court

High Court

The appeal was allowed by consent because the sentencing judge erred by having regard to a cancelled prison sentence rather than the substituted home detention sentence and by failing to account for time spent in custody awaiting re-sentence; the correct sentence on re-sentence was 16 months imprisonment and the 20 month sentence was quashed and replaced accordingly.
15 Sept 2017

AKUHATA v THE QUEEN [2017] NZHC 2237

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2237
Court

High Court

The High Court found the sentencing Judge erred in his evaluation of whether home detention could be substituted, ordered reconsideration by permitting the appellant to apply for cancellation of the custodial sentence if a suitable address is approved, and substituted the sentence as a two year term of imprisonment subject to leave to seek home detention upon approval of a suitable address.
18 Jul 2017

PIHEMA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 1672

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1672
Court

High Court

The sentencing contained multiple material errors — an incorrect arithmetic aggregation of component sentences, an impermissible exercise of jurisdiction under s111, incorrect sequencing of applying uplift and guilty plea discount, and a disproportionate uplift for prior offending — warranting re-sentencing; applying correct methodology yields a seven month starting point, a one month uplift, and a 25% guilty plea discount, resulting in a final sentence of six months' imprisonment.
7 Jul 2017

Peita v NZ Police [2017] NZHC 1568

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1568
Court

High Court

Judge Ryan failed to consider s 80ZB; appeal allowed in part and earlier imprisonment sentences quashed and substituted with concurrent terms effective from 2 December 2016 with all remand time taken into account under s 80ZB, producing near immediate eligibility for release as intended by the sentencing judge.