New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recidivism

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2023

JOHNSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3302

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3302
Court

High Court

The High Court held the sentencing Judge did not err: the starting point and uplifts were within range, the 5% s 27 discount was justified given self‑reported material and lack of contemporaneous causal evidence, no additional discount for remorse/rehabilitation/restorative justice was warranted given recidivism and limited evidentiary weight, and no EM bail credit was warranted due to repeated breaches; therefore the 28 month sentence was not manifestly excessive.
1 Nov 2023

MAKISI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3066

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3066
Court

High Court

The High Court found the uplift for driving while disqualified did not amount to impermissible double counting because offending aggravating features (very high BAC and driving while on an interlock licence without a device) were distinct from personal aggravating factors (longstanding and recent recidivism); the cumulative starting point and final sentence sat within ranges established by comparable authorities (notably Himiona and Samson) and, given persistent recidivism and prior custodial sentences, home detention would not meet the necessary objectives of denunciation, deterrence and com…
21 Sept 2023

AFFLECK v POLICE [2023] NZHC 2643

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2643
Court

High Court

The High Court held the aggregate starting point of 30 months was within range given multiple recent incidents, high breath alcohol readings, dangerous driving and extensive recidivism; the two-year effective custodial sentence was not manifestly excessive and imprisonment was necessary for denunciation, deterrence and community protection; the appellant's ADHD did not render imprisonment disproportionately severe and leave to apply for home detention was not warranted.
10 Jul 2023

MOORE v R [2023] NZCA 286

Citation

[2023] NZCA 286
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed preventive detention because, applying s87(4) correctly and recognising that the existing ESO will be reactivated and can be strengthened with stringent special conditions focused on monitoring and rehabilitation, a determinate sentence of 26 months plus an active ESO provides adequate protection; the High Court erred in concluding the ESO was of no effect and that only preventive detention would protect the community, making preventive detention disproportionate in the circumstances.
28 Feb 2023

WILKINS v POLICE [2023] NZHC 313

Citation

[2023] NZHC 313
Court

High Court

The offending fell within the second Samson category given a high breath alcohol reading and dangerous driving; although uplift for prior convictions risked double-counting it was within the available range; evidence supported alcohol dependency but dependency does not automatically mitigate drink-driving and did not justify discount here; home detention was unsuitable given seriousness, high reading, recidivism and lack of insight; the 12-month imprisonment sentence was not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
12 Oct 2022

R v MOORE [2022] NZHC 2635

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2635
Court

High Court

Preventive detention was imposed because the court was satisfied on the evidence and health assessor reports that Moore, given a long history of sexual offending against children, repeated breaches of extended supervision, and high assessed risk factors, was likely to reoffend if released at the expiry of a determinate sentence and a determinate sentence alone could not adequately protect the community; accordingly indefinite preventive detention with a five-year minimum period of imprisonment was necessary.
20 Jul 2022

RATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1736

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1736
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because the High Court found no error in the District Court's exercise of discretion: given the appellant's persistent, recent and high-level recidivist drink driving while disqualified, his lack of remorse/insight, prior custodial and non-custodial sentences' ineffectiveness, and public safety concerns, imprisonment rather than home detention was an appropriate and not manifestly excessive sentence.
8 Jul 2022

R v CHANTHAWONG [Sentencing Notes] [2022] NZHC 1623

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1623
Court

High Court

Given proven supply of at least 488.1 grams and a significant (not leading) role, the appropriate starting point was 9.5 years. A 15% notional uplift for prior similar offending was reduced to account for time served on recall producing an adjusted starting point. Applying a 25% aggregate discount (including guilty plea parity) produced an end sentence of seven years and five months' imprisonment; a minimum period of imprisonment of three years and four months (45%) was imposed given recidivism and commerciality; possession charge dismissed under s147; seized methamphetamine forfeited for des…
10 May 2022

SHIRLEY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 986

Citation

[2022] NZHC 986
Court

High Court

The Court held that the overall sentence of three months' community detention and six months' supervision was within range and not an error, but the 13 month disqualification was disproportionate given the historic nature of earlier convictions and rehabilitative considerations; the disqualification was reduced to 12 months to achieve proportionality while upholding road safety objectives.
9 Feb 2022

WELSH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 132

Citation

[2022] NZHC 132
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court's starting point and 16 month sentence were within the appropriate range given the gravity, recidivism and aggravating features (high breath reading and breach of release conditions) and that the sentencing process did not produce a manifestly excessive outcome; only the unrelated post-release travel restriction was improperly imposed and was deleted.