14 Dec 2023
The High Court dismissed the appeal: the District Court properly treated the breach of the protection order as the lead offence and correctly assessed aggravating factors and uplifts; although some discrete uplifts were marginally high, any modest excesses were offset by the guilty plea discount and did not render the overall 21 month sentence manifestly excessive.
5 Apr 2023
The five year overall starting point was within range given the combined seriousness of arson, assault and related offending; however material post‑sentencing changes (substantial voluntary payments from KiwiSaver and ongoing weekly payments, demonstrated remorse and steps towards alcohol treatment) justified a fresh sentence reducing the starting point by 30% and substituting 12 months home detention for imprisonment, and reducing reparation to $30,000 with credit for amounts already paid.
21 Jun 2022
The appeal was dismissed because the four month uplift for prior convictions was not manifestly excessive given the appellant's significant history of similar offending and nexus to current offending, and commutation to home detention was inappropriate because of unresolved rehabilitation, prior breach risk and the need to protect the public; the end sentence was within the available range.
13 Dec 2021
Starting point of 12 months imprisonment was appropriate for the threat to kill; uplifts of 2 months for dangerous driving, 2 months for assault on a police officer and 1 month for refusal to provide a blood specimen produced a notional 17 months, reduced for a 15% guilty plea discount and credited time on EM bail and in custody such that the court, applying totality and recognising the defendant's rehabilitative progress, imposed a non-custodial intensive supervision order for 12 months with 40 hours community work and ancillary orders including six months' driving disqualification and a s12…
1 Jul 2020
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the disqualification of 27 months because the total period was not manifestly excessive given the mandatory statutory minima, the serious aggravating features and distinct episodes of deliberate re‑offending; the only sentencing error favoured the appellant (misapprehension of a 6‑month rather than 12‑month minimum for refusal) but did not require resentencing.
31 Mar 2020
The High Court held the sentencing Judge did not err in refusing home detention because the appellant's extreme intoxication and the resulting death required denunciation and deterrence; the imposed sentence of one year and nine months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
19 Mar 2020
The High Court upheld the District Court's refusal to grant a discharge without conviction because the refusal to provide a blood specimen carried heightened gravity due to public safety and case-specific aggravating features, and the appellant failed to show that the real and appreciable consequences of conviction (including potential impact on aviation employment) were disproportionate to that gravity under s107 Sentencing Act 2002.
27 Aug 2019
The High Court held that the appellant, as a regular weekend guest acting with implied agency of absent tenants and joined by a resident daughter, effectively revoked the officer's implied licence before the officer exercised coercive powers; the officer was therefore unlawfully on the property when he required breath screening and effected arrest, rendering the arrest and the related refusal-to-submit charge unsustainable; appeal allowed and charges dismissed, no retrial.
9 May 2019
The jury were properly directed that the Crown had to prove the appellant consciously refused to permit a blood specimen; the jury could properly find beyond reasonable doubt that refusal occurred while conscious on the evidence; the statutory prerequisites in s 73(5) were satisfied on the evidence and by the medical certificate which was not challenged; statutory protection in s 73(7) means Bill of Rights claims do not negate the operation of s 73, therefore the conviction stands.
15 Jun 2018
The High Court held the sentencing judge did not err: adopting an 18 month starting point for the lead refusal-to-provide-blood charge and uplifting by 10 months for driving while disqualified was permissible and within range given the appellant's extensive history and dangerous driving; the stated one-third discount was a misstatement but the judge applied a 25% guilty plea discount which was appropriate; therefore the 21 month sentence and indefinite disqualification are affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.