New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rehabilitative credit

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2018

KENNEDY v R [2018] NZHC 1931

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1931
Court

High Court

Given the quantity of methamphetamine, documentary evidence of dealing and cash located, the starting point of three years six months imprisonment was within the R v Fatu band for the offending; the Judge permissibly discounted for personal mitigation and remorse (including rehabilitative steps) and applied full guilty plea discount; the resulting sentence of two years and one month was within range and not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
20 Apr 2018

PROCTOR v POLICE [2018] NZHC 763

Citation

[2018] NZHC 763
Court

High Court

Although the Judge's starting points and adoption of a cumulative approach were within range, the cumulative construction produced a total sentence manifestly excessive in breach of the totality principle; the appropriate remedy is to reduce the cumulative sentence by six months, substituting two years and five months' imprisonment, while leaving reparation and fines orders intact.
21 Nov 2017

Gibb v R [2017] NZCA 532

Citation

[2017] NZCA 532
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the aggregate starting point of 30 months (18 months for burglary uplifted for breach of protection order and prior related offending) and the resulting end sentence of two years and three months was within the available range, not manifestly excessive, and any omission to discount for five months of electronic monitoring did not render the sentence unreasonable given the generous uplift for culpability.
6 Sept 2017

NAULEO v THE QUEEN [2017] NZHC 2149

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2149
Court

High Court

A four‑year starting point for possession of approximately 33.9g methamphetamine with limited additional indicia of commerciality falls within the Fatu band 2 range; however, where the offender complied with an extremely restrictive 24‑hour electronically monitored bail for over 19 months a substantial discount (nine months) plus a discrete credit for rehabilitative efforts (three months) is required, yielding a 12‑month reduction and a substituted sentence of two years two months.
8 Mar 2016

MCNEIL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 383

Citation

[2016] NZHC 383
Court

High Court

The appeal is allowed in part to correct an arithmetical error: the sentencing Judge intended a six month rehabilitative discount which was not applied; correcting that error produced an end sentence before guilty plea reduction of three years six months, and after the 25% guilty plea discount a final sentence of two years seven months. The starting point for the robberies and the Judge's assessment declining additional discount for the appellant's letters were not manifestly excessive and did not warrant interference.

New Zealand Case Law

KENNEDY v R [2018] NZHC 1931

PROCTOR v POLICE [2018] NZHC 763

Gibb v R [2017] NZCA 532

NAULEO v THE QUEEN [2017] NZHC 2149

MCNEIL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 383