New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing discretion

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2023

FRAZER FAALIGA v R [2023] NZHC 2901

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2901
Court

High Court

Judge erred by failing to specifically consider s16(1); given the PAC Report showing low risk and suitability for electronically monitored home detention, and the extensive discounts reducing the gravity of the offending, imprisonment was not necessary to achieve sentencing purposes and was manifestly excessive; the least restrictive appropriate sentence was home detention and the appeal is allowed and sentence replaced accordingly.
29 Sept 2023

R v DICKSON [2023] NZHC 2732

Citation

R v DICKSON [2023] NZHC 2732
Court

High Court

Although the defendant committed multiple breaches that would ordinarily justify cancelling home detention under s 80F, the judge exercised discretion to dismiss the cancellation application and allow a final opportunity to resume home detention because there was no suggestion of further offending while away, the defendant demonstrated remorse, cited significant mental health and bereavement factors, and expressed willingness to engage in rehabilitative services; the judge warned that any further breach will result in inevitable cancellation and imprisonment.
28 Aug 2023

SAYERS v NZ POLICE [2023] NZHC 2362

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2362
Court

High Court

The High Court affirmed the District Court's assessment that the offending was in the low to moderate range given a significantly high blood alcohol reading (146 mg/100ml) and that the direct and indirect consequences of conviction (including ability to obtain a limited licence, continued volunteer work and stigma) were not out of all proportion to that gravity; appeal dismissed.
29 Jun 2023

ROSS STANLEY HOMER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 1761

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1761
Court

High Court

A miscarriage of justice occurred because the District Court judge identified the offending warranted a lesser charge, the prosecutor indicated willingness to amend, but the appellant was not afforded opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea or to consult and be heard; accordingly the High Court quashed the dangerous driving conviction and substituted a conviction for careless driving.
6 Mar 2023

BOLEA v THE KING [2023] NZCA 39

Citation

[2023] NZCA 39
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Judge did not err: in this case deportation and the associated process are properly regarded as consequences of the offending rather than of the conviction because immigration decision-makers will consider the gravity of the offending and personal circumstances; the High Court correctly applied the s106/s107 proportionality test and was entitled to decline a discharge without conviction; the appeal is dismissed.
15 Mar 2022

MATETE v POLICE [2022] NZHC 441

Citation

[2022] NZHC 441
Court

High Court

No miscarriage of justice in declining discharge without conviction; no special reasons relating to the offence under s81 existed; s94 did not apply because appellant had no prior disqualification; the 12 month disqualification was manifestly excessive and was reduced to the six month mandatory minimum.
14 Mar 2022

KONDRATYEVA v ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SPCA) [2022] NZHC 449

Citation

[2022] NZHC 449
Court

High Court

The High Court held the amended summary of facts and the appellant's guilty plea supported a factual finding she was an owner of the seized animals (veterinary records, possession, long-term care and control, and conduct), therefore the District Court had jurisdiction to order forfeiture under s 172; the sentencing Judge did not err in exercising discretion to forfeit given blatant and persistent breach and attempts to evade detection; further 10 year disqualification was not manifestly excessive given lack of insight, repeated non-compliance and risk to animals.
14 Dec 2021

WHITEHEAD v POLICE [2021] NZHC 3421

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3421
Court

High Court

The Protection Order was quashed because the sentencing Judge failed to conduct the required necessity assessment under s123B and related authorities, and the evidence established there was no realistic risk of further family-violence-type offending (the appellant no longer had access to the victim's accounts), making the Order unnecessary and manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
8 Dec 2021

R v MORGAN [2021] NZHC 3352

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3352
Court

High Court

The application to adjourn sentencing to await repeal of the three strikes regime is declined; the court must apply existing law and cannot suspend it pending prospective legislation, although the defendant may advance a NZBORA s9 argument at sentencing which the court can decide without delay.
1 Dec 2021

MUNU v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 3274

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3274
Court

High Court

The appeal was allowed because the Judge's pre‑sentence exchange created a real ambiguity about whether a cumulative six‑month sentence was intended; to give effect to the outcome defence counsel and the appellant reasonably believed the Judge intended, the concurrent 16‑month sentence was quashed and replaced with a six‑month sentence to be served cumulatively on the earlier ten‑month sentence; leave to appeal out of time was granted given explanation and lack of opposition.