New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Victim impact statements

Legal area

Court

14 Dec 2023

R v MURFITT [2023] NZHC 3707

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3707
Court

High Court

Applying band two starting points for separate sexual violation offences, uplift for cumulative offending and limited mitigation, the appropriate determinate sentence is 10 years' imprisonment with a five-year minimum period; preventive detention was considered but declined because a lengthy determinate sentence combined with potential post-release supervision and rehabilitation was preferential for community protection.
8 Dec 2023

R v VAENUKU [2023] NZHC 3593

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3593
Court

High Court

Given the defendant's role in post-stabbing group assaults, the court established a starting point of 18 months' imprisonment, then reduced it by 25% for an early guilty plea, further reduced for demonstrable rehabilitation engagement, and credited restrictive EM bail time, resulting in a non-custodial sentence of four months community detention combined with 12 months supervision as the proportionate and constructive sanction that reflects culpability while allowing continued employment and family support.
1 Dec 2023

R v TE POU [2023] NZHC 3483

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3483
Court

High Court

Given multiple aggravating features (consumption of alcohol and drugs, extreme and prolonged excessive speed in a busy central area, refusal to heed passenger warnings, deliberate dangerous driving including running a red light and evading police, unlicensed driving with eight passengers including occupants in the boot, and causing one death and multiple serious injuries) a starting point of nine years six months' imprisonment was appropriate; that starting point was reduced by 11 months (approx. 10%) for youth and personal background, six months (approx. 5%) for genuine remorse, and 29 month…
20 Oct 2023

R v CHAMPION [2023] NZHC 2949

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2949
Court

High Court

Despite significant mitigation (youth, PTSD, guilty plea, remorse, good character) the offending involved wild lunges with a knife causing a single fatal stab; the gravity, need for denunciation and general deterrence require a term of imprisonment. Home detention was not the least restrictive sentence adequate to achieve sentencing purposes, so the court imposed two years' imprisonment.
29 Aug 2023

R v BUCHANAN [2023] NZHC 2373

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2373
Court

High Court

Given consistent psychiatric evidence that the defendant suffers ongoing, active schizophrenia with partial insight, continued hallucinations, need for clozapine and intensive rehabilitation, the court was satisfied the high 'necessary' threshold in s24(2)(a) was met to protect the public and facilitate appropriate treatment; less restrictive s25 orders were unsuitable; name suppression threshold not met.
25 May 2023

LEWIS v R [2023] NZHC 1248

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1248
Court

High Court

The 10% uplift imposed at sentencing for additional victim impact was unjustified because the Judge did not articulate why the consequences were significantly greater than at the sentence indication and did not give counsel an opportunity to address an increase beyond the indicated starting point; consequently the uplift was removed, the starting point of three years six months was affirmed and, after applying credited reductions and uplifts, the substituted sentence is two years nine months' imprisonment.
5 May 2023

R v BELL [2023] NZHC 1076

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1076
Court

High Court

The starting point for this attempted murder (use of a car as weapon, serious physical and psychological injury, vulnerable victim and abuse of trust) is six years imprisonment (Taueki band two analogue). Applying discounts of 10% for prior good character, 10% for mental health at time of offending, and a three month credit for seven months on electronically monitored bail produced a final sentence of four years and six months imprisonment. No minimum period of imprisonment was imposed.
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.
29 Nov 2022

JOHNSTON v ELECTRICAL WORKERS REGISTRATION BOARD [2022] NZHC 3155

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3155
Court

High Court

Application to admit further evidence was denied because the evidence was not fresh, was obtainable with reasonable diligence, and would not have materially influenced the sentencing outcome.
14 Nov 2022

HUIRUA v R [2022] NZCA 537

Citation

[2022] NZCA 537
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Judge correctly adopted a global approach that properly included the Companies Act offending and therefore losses and personal gain were relevant to culpability and the appropriate starting point; the offending period was properly assessed to run from incorporation and deceptive conduct to discovery; the starting point of 4.5 years and the discounts applied (20% guilty plea, 5% remorse, 10% good character) were within orthodox ranges and the final sentence was within range, so the appeal was dismissed.