New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Three-strikes regime

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2022

STEVENS v R [2022] NZCA 275

Citation

[2022] NZCA 275
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the propensity phone evidence was admissible, exclusion of cross-examination about the six-year-old incident was proper for lack of relevance, amendment of charge two under s136 was lawful because no prejudice was shown and the defence case covered the altered charge, the conviction on the first charge was reasonable on the totality of the evidence, and preventive detention was justified given the appellant's serious pattern of paedophilic offending and high risk of reoffending.
28 Apr 2022

R v WIRIHANA [2022] NZHC 863

Citation

[2022] NZHC 863
Court

High Court

Starting point placed in Taueki band two (seven years) given single fatal neck stab with aggravating features and provocation; applied 8 month uplift for prior serious offending and then full 25% discount for earliest practicable offer to plead guilty plus a 10% reduction for personal mitigation and rehabilitative prospects, arriving at an effective sentence of four years and six months' imprisonment; declined to order the sentence be served without parole because doing so would be disproportionately severe contrary to s 9 BORA given the s 27 report, rehabilitative prospects, and the proximit…
3 Dec 2021

R v TELEFONI [2021] NZHC 3295

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3295
Court

High Court

Applying Taueki bands and analogous case law the offender's culpability fell within band three; a nine year starting point was selected, uplifted by 12 months for the injuring offence and three months for offending while subject to sentence, reduced by 10% for youth, 20% for cultural/background factors and 5% for remorse to 6 years 8 months, then reduced by 2 years 8 months for totality to reach a final sentence of four years' imprisonment for manslaughter to be served cumulatively on the existing sentence with the two year sentence for injuring with intent to be served concurrently; a second…
29 Oct 2021

R v WAITOKIA [2021] NZHC 2905

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2905
Court

High Court

Assaults on prison officers involving targeted head strikes, high violence and attempted escape warrant a high starting point; after setting a three year starting point for the lead injuring charge and a discrete six month uplift for the aggravated assault, the Court declined to apply a further uplift for prior convictions because doing so would be disproportionate given the offender was serving a maximum three-strikes sentence; applied a 25% guilty plea discount, 15% discount for proven social and cultural deprivation, and 5% for restorative engagement, producing an end sentence of one year…
22 Oct 2021

R v TAMIEFUNA [2021] NZHC 2880

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2880
Court

High Court

Starting point set at six years based on comparison with analogous authorities (Stratton-Pineaha, Tereora, Mako), uplift of 12 months for extensive prior relevant convictions (adjusted starting point 7 years), then discounts totalling 30% (15% for personal background, 10% for trial cooperation, 5% for demonstrated insight/ remorse) producing an end sentence of 4 years 11 months (59 months). Pursuant to s86C(4) Sentencing Act 2002 the sentence is to be served without parole.
25 Oct 2019

R v WERETA [2019] NZHC 2734

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2734
Court

High Court

Preventive detention was necessary because the offender posed a high and enduring risk of serious violent reoffending given the extreme, gang-motivated prison attack, his extensive violent history and expert risk opinions; however a 14-year minimum would be manifestly unjust and counterproductive, so preventive detention was imposed with an eight-year minimum to protect the public while preserving incentive for rehabilitation.
11 Oct 2019

R v KAIENUA [2019] NZHC 2586

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2586
Court

High Court

The court was required by statute to impose the maximum sentences of 14 years on both counts as this was a qualifying third strike, but concluded it would be manifestly unjust to order those sentences be served without parole because of the offender's severe psychological vulnerability from prior traumatic incarceration and the large disparity between the hypothetical non-parole period but for the scheme (two years) and the 14-year statutory term; accordingly the court imposed concurrent 14-year sentences and did not make an order that they be served without parole.
11 Jun 2019

R v WHEBLE [2019] NZHC 1301

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1301
Court

High Court

Judge found offending extreme but toward lower end of band 3 given level of planning and injuries; set starting point at 10 years, applied 10% (12 months) personal mitigation discount, then a 12-month guilty plea discount and a further 12-month totality deduction because sentence will be cumulative with existing imprisonment, resulting in final sentence of 7 years. Three-strikes law requires full service without parole; MPI that would have been imposed absent second-strike was 3 years 6 months.
7 Mar 2019

DAVIS v R [2019] NZCA 40

Citation

[2019] 3 NZLR 43
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted an extension of time and dismissed the appeal: the Judge's notional MPI of 14 years was materially too low given the brutality and callousness of the murder and the offender's persistent violent offending; a notional MPI of at least 17 years was warranted and the statutory presumptive 20-year MPI under s 86E(4)(a) was not manifestly unjust in the offender's circumstances, therefore life without parole remained appropriately displaced to life with a 20-year MPI.
21 Jan 2019

WICKLIFFE v R [2019] NZHC 17

Citation

[2019] NZHC 17
Court

High Court

Appellant did not prove he received affirmative erroneous advice that he would serve only one third of any sentence; he already knew of the second-strike consequences from prior oral and written warnings and duty solicitor advice, and his guilty pleas were therefore not induced by counsel error; however the sentencing Judge erred by not formally ordering the full term without parole under s86C(4), so sentence is remitted for re-sentencing.