New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assault with intent to rob

Legal area

Court

11 Nov 2022

TAHAU v R [2022] NZHC 2964

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2964
Court

High Court

The Court held the District Court was entitled to adopt an adjusted starting point of six years (5.5 years for aggravated robbery uplifted for related assault) but that greater credit for guilty pleas was justified given the Crown's late amendment of the assault charge and clarification of factual disputes; a 20% guilty plea discount (not the full 25%) was appropriate. After recalculating discounts for youth, cultural factors, remorse and rehabilitation and applying specified EM bail credits, the Court allowed the appeal in part and substituted reduced custodial terms for both appellants.
2 Sept 2022

HEEMI AND ORS v R [2022] NZHC 2141

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2141
Court

High Court

The District Court starting point for the leader was adjusted to six years nine months (a three month leader uplift rather than six); an additional modest mitigation allowance (~5%) was warranted beyond the discounts applied by the sentencing Judge because remorse, first‑time status and rehabilitative steps warranted specific recognition; that adjustment reduced end sentences into the home detention eligibility range and therefore the appropriate, least restrictive outcome was to quash the sentences of imprisonment and substitute home detention with specified durations and conditions, and to…
29 Oct 2019

EDWARDS v R [2019] NZHC 2755

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2755
Court

High Court

Convictions for discharging a firearm and accessing a computer system were quashed because they were withdrawn and entered erroneously; the sentence of four years and eight months was not manifestly excessive because the judge's chosen starting point, uplift, and generous application of the 25% guilty plea discount (appropriately reflecting remorse in context) were within acceptable ranges and s27 factors were taken into account via a six month deduction.
18 Oct 2019

Solomon v New Zealand Police [2019] NZHC 2668

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2668
Court

High Court

Although the sentencing Judge did not explicitly recite s 85, the aggregate sentence when considered in total was not wholly out of proportion to the gravity of the overall offending; starting point and discounts were within range and the cumulative sentences were not manifestly excessive, so the appeal fails.
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.
20 Aug 2019

SABPREET SINGH v R [2019] NZCA 374

Citation

[2019] NZCA 374
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Judge's starting point of ten years (properly reflecting totality) and the reductions (20% for guilty pleas and 15% for personal mitigation) were within the permissible range; the hardship and mitigation asserted were not exceptional and the overall sentence of six years six months was not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.
12 Jul 2019

R v TE TOMO [2019] NZHC 1624

Citation

R v TE TOMO [2019] NZHC 1624
Court

High Court

Applying R v Mako guidance the judge identified a 30-month custodial starting point, allowed sequential discounts (20% for early plea, 10% for strict bail conditions, 5% for rehabilitation) reducing the effective custodial term to around 20 months, and in light of substantial time already served and demonstrated rehabilitation imposed an 18-month intensive supervision order under s 54K with specified special conditions.
27 Jun 2019

BORELL v POLICE [2019] NZHC 1483

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1483
Court

High Court

The High Court accepted the s 27 report disclosed substantial mitigating personal, familial and cultural deprivation causally linked to the offending, warranting a significant personal circumstances discount; a 30% reduction was appropriate on the lead offence, reducing the sentence to 22 months, and leave was granted to apply for home detention under s 80I subject to availability and suitability of placement and address.
15 Apr 2019

R v MOWBRAY [2019] NZHC 820

Citation

[2019] NZHC 820
Court

High Court

Defendant's participation in a premeditated joint plan involving multiple offenders and firearms, which resulted in serious injury, attracted a starting point in the lower end of Taueki Band 3 but, on assessment of his individual culpability (he did not carry or discharge firearms or directly assault the victim), the offending fell into Band 2 with a starting point in the vicinity of eight years; after a 20% reduction for personal factors and a 15% guilty plea discount the appropriate sentence is five years and five months' imprisonment and no MPI is required given assessed risk and lack of p…
19 Sept 2018

HEWITT v R [2018] NZCA 374

Citation

[2018] NZCA 374
Court

Court of Appeal

The prosecutor's challenge to the appellant's alibi crossed the protection in s32 of the Evidence Act 2006 and the judge was obliged to give the statutory s32 direction but failed to do so; despite that breach, on the facts and strength of the Crown case the omission did not cause a miscarriage of justice and convictions stand; however the original sentence was manifestly excessive and was reduced to reflect totality, treatment and rehabilitation needs, and inappropriate uplift for historical convictions was not sustained; permanent suppression ordered for specified paragraphs of judgment.