New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remorse mitigation

Legal area

Court

5 Sept 2023

VEGA v POLICE [2023] NZHC 2476

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2476
Court

High Court

The High Court held the sentencing Judge did not err in principle and the end sentence was not manifestly excessive: the starting point and uplifts were justified, the 20% reduction for guilty pleas was appropriate given timing, the 20% reduction for remorse and rehabilitation was generous given the seriousness of the strangulation, and the appellant's personal circumstances did not establish the causal link required for further reduction; the sentence of 11 months' home detention is affirmed.
5 May 2023

CAMERON v R [2023] NZCA 157

Citation

[2023] NZCA 157
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the trial Judge did not err in giving a balanced counter-intuitive direction without expert evidence because the common law already permits such directions to correct jury misconceptions in sexual cases; the Judge's comment that the complainant's evidence about the incriminating remark was uncontradicted was not misleading in context; the victim impact statement did not disclose a miscarriage of justice; and no remission for remorse was warranted where the offender maintained denial and advanced defences, so the conviction and sentence were upheld.
24 Nov 2021

R v GARDNER [2021] NZHC 3174

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3174
Court

High Court

Starting point of five years' imprisonment was appropriate given three forceful blows to the head, age and physical advantage, and domestic setting; a four month uplift for prior relevant offending produced 5 years 4 months; a full 25% guilty plea discount reduced the indicated sentence to not more than four years; the court allowed a 12% discount for personal background and a further 7% for genuine remorse, resulting in an imposed sentence of three years' imprisonment; drug withdrawal was not accepted as mitigation per s9(3).
17 Dec 2019

H v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3349

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3349
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because the judge did not err: the guilty plea discount (six months) was appropriate given the plea was not made at the earliest opportunity; the one month discount for remorse was justified as medical material did not demonstrate genuine or exceptional remorse nor a causal link between ADHD and the offending; therefore the 26 month sentence was not manifestly excessive.
20 Dec 2018

MEYER v POLICE [2018] NZHC 3434

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3434
Court

High Court

A starting point of two years for use of a false New Zealand passport to evade overseas criminal consequences was within the proper range; the District Court erred in entirely discounting remorse but only a small reduction (one to two months) was warranted and would not make the 18 month sentence manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
16 May 2017

R v PIDDECK [2017] NZHC 1016

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1016
Court

High Court

The appropriate starting point for this non‑commercial manufacturing within R v Fatu band 2 is five years' imprisonment; no uplift for prior convictions was imposed due to a long gap in relevant offending; a 10% reduction for remorse and a 25% reduction for guilty plea produced a final sentence of three years five months' imprisonment on the manufacturing charge, with concurrent 18 month terms on the other charges for an overall effective sentence of three years five months.

New Zealand Case Law

VEGA v POLICE [2023] NZHC 2476

CAMERON v R [2023] NZCA 157

R v GARDNER [2021] NZHC 3174

H v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3349

MEYER v POLICE [2018] NZHC 3434

R v PIDDECK [2017] NZHC 1016