New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remorse as mitigation

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2023

RANGIRANGI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2554

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2554
Court

High Court

The Judge did not err: given the plea history (initial indication, subsequent not guilty election, negotiations and late plea) a 20% guilty plea discount was appropriate; the pre-sentence report and prior offending meant remorse was not sufficiently established and no rehabilitative need was demonstrated, so no further discount was warranted; therefore the sentence of two years two months imprisonment was properly imposed.
26 Jul 2023

MO’UNGA v R [2023] NZHC 1967

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1967
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court's adjusted starting point of 42 months was appropriate; the judge erred by not applying the full 25% guilty plea discount and by not granting a separate 5% discount for genuine remorse. Applying the Moses methodology (deductions as percentages of the 42-month adjusted starting point, then adding a 4-month uplift) produced an end sentence of 27 months (two years three months) which replaced the original two years six months sentence.
15 Nov 2022

AARON REEDY v R [2022] NZHC 3011

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3011
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the sentencing judge did not err in allowing a 10% discount for factors in the s 27 report and a 5% discount for remorse/rehabilitation/medical considerations given the limited causal nexus, predominance of self-reported material, the commercial nature of the offending and absence of independent evidence; the overall sentence was within range and did not warrant appellate interference.
2 Mar 2021

STANSBURY v POLICE [2021] NZHC 346

Citation

[2021] NZHC 346
Court

High Court

The High Court found the sentencing Judge erred by wholly disregarding the appellant's s 27 cultural report and by concluding there was no persuasive evidence of remorse; however those errors did not materially affect the final outcome because the Judge's arithmetic/totality adjustments reduced the effective sentence. The appeal was dismissed and the 22 month sentence (as imposed) was upheld.
17 Oct 2018

RENATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 2673

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2673
Court

High Court

The Court held the uplifts applied by the District Court for the theft and for previous dishonesty convictions were within the available range and not manifestly excessive, but the sentencing Judge erred by failing to give any tangible credit for the appellant's demonstrated remorse and for his genuine but uncorroborated assistance to police. The Court therefore reduced the end sentence by applying a one month discount for remorse and a four month discount for assistance, resulting in a reduced burglary sentence of two years one month and a concurrent theft sentence of five months.
17 Feb 2017

CAMERON PAUL EDWARDS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 200

Citation

[2017] NZHC 200
Court

High Court

Court held sentencing Judge gave insufficient allowance for personal mitigating factors (age, remorse, rehabilitation) and in relation to family violence offences full 25% guilty plea credit applied; applied 10% credit for personal mitigation overall, reduced specified sentences accordingly and varied robbery sentence from 23 to 21 months resulting in total cumulative sentence of 25 months (2 years 1 month); no further totality adjustment required.

New Zealand Case Law

RANGIRANGI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2554

MO’UNGA v R [2023] NZHC 1967

AARON REEDY v R [2022] NZHC 3011

STANSBURY v POLICE [2021] NZHC 346

RENATA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 2673

CAMERON PAUL EDWARDS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 200