New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sexual offending against children

Legal area

Court

3 May 2022

TAYLOR v R [2022] NZHC 912

Citation

[2022] NZHC 912
Court

High Court

Court found the Judge's 36-month starting point was within range given the extended, repeated offending against two young children and acute breach of trust, but the Judge erred by under-allocating discounts. Proper recognition of guilty plea (25%) plus discrete discounts for cooperation, remorse and rehabilitative receptivity (total 15%) required reducing the end sentence to approximately 21.6 months, and the Court substituted a sentence of 21 months and two weeks' imprisonment; home detention was rejected as insufficient given culpability.
2 Sept 2021

MCKINNON v R [2021] NZCA 427

Citation

[2021] NZCA 427
Court

Court of Appeal

The evidential video interview complied with reg 8(d) and the complainant's promise and corrections demonstrated understanding and voluntariness; the interpreter's clarifying interventions did not render the interview suggestive or tainted the evidence, so the conviction was safe; sentencing: an 18‑month starting point adjusted for priors and restrictive bail to a 17‑month imprisonment was within range and home detention was not appropriate given prior offending and escalation, therefore the sentence stands.
28 Mar 2018

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v E [2018] NZHC 556

Citation

[2018] NZHC 556
Court

High Court

The Court independently accepted the assessors' findings that Mr E has a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and meets the s 107IAA criteria (sexual preoccupation, predilection, limited self‑regulation, absence of meaningful understanding of harm), poses a high risk of reoffending against children, and therefore a ten‑year extended supervision order with standard conditions and interim special conditions is necessary and proportionate to protect the community.
12 Feb 2018

W (CA272/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 11

Citation

[2018] NZCA 11
Court

Court of Appeal

Counsel's choices about the scope and style of cross-examination and closing submissions were reasonable tactical decisions made in the light of the prior aborted trial and the strength and consistency of complainants' evidence; those decisions did not amount to a failure to follow fundamental instructions nor create a real risk of miscarriage of justice. A minor incorrect assertion about likely ejaculation was immaterial to the outcome. Appeal against conviction dismissed; publication ban under s200 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 made to protect identity of complainants and appellant.
6 Oct 2017

GOOSE v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2453

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2453
Court

High Court

The District Court's 30% total mitigation credit was manifestly inadequate; the appellant was entitled to full value for an early plea (25%) and additional credit for youth, remorse and rehabilitation (10%), leading to substitution of the 25 month imprisonment term with 10 months home detention; the court was satisfied the s9(2) risk threshold under the Child Protection Act was met and directed registration; the appeal against name suppression was dismissed as the statutory extreme hardship threshold was not met.
30 Nov 2016

CUNHA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2878

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2878
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings — preferring the complainants' accounts based on demeanour, internal consistency, improbability of the defendant's explanations, reliable identification (description, accent, photo ID) and significant probative propensity evidence — were open to him and did not amount to any error creating a real risk of miscarriage of justice.
9 Feb 2016

RUBICK v R [2016] NZCA 8

Citation

[2016] NZCA 8
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted an extension of time but declined leave to adduce further evidence because the material was not fresh, credible or cogent and would not have altered the sentencing assessment; the High Court was entitled to impose preventive detention because expert reports showed enduring deviant sexual interests, manipulative behaviour, increased seriousness and persistence of offending including past age 60, so age did not reliably mitigate future risk.

New Zealand Case Law

TAYLOR v R [2022] NZHC 912

MCKINNON v R [2021] NZCA 427

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v E [2018] NZHC 556

W (CA272/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 11

GOOSE v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2453

CUNHA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2878

RUBICK v R [2016] NZCA 8