New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Attempting to pervert the course of justice

Legal area

Court

19 Oct 2023

R v NGAPERA [2023] NZHC 2931

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2931
Court

High Court

Court set starting point for conspiracy to injure at 2 years 9 months, uplifted by 12 months for attempting to pervert the course of justice to 3 years 9 months, then uplifted 3 months for relevant prior convictions to a 4 year starting point; applied a 20% total reduction (12.5% for guilty plea and 7.5% for personal circumstances/time on EM bail) to reach an effective concurrent sentence of 3 years 2 months imprisonment for each defendant.
13 Oct 2023

WATTS v R [2023] NZHC 2704

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2704
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal out of time is refused because the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances or a real risk of miscarriage of justice; her claims are bald, unsupported by evidence, inconsistent with the record, and she has not waived privilege to adduce legal advice, therefore convictions entered after guilty pleas stand.
4 Sept 2023

SULLIVAN v R [2023] NZHC 2453

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2453
Court

High Court

The Judge's selection of a 30‑month starting point reduced by generous discounts (including a full guilty plea discount effectively rounded up) producing a 20‑month imprisonment term was within the available sentencing range; the Judge lawfully considered s 16 factors and concluded home detention would not meet the purposes of sentencing given sustained, deliberate perversion of justice, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
31 Mar 2023

R v MARU [2023] NZHC 790

Citation

[2023] NZHC 790
Court

High Court

Court adopted starting points of five years for manslaughter and one year for attempting to pervert the course of justice (combined six years), found defendant's culpability reduced by PTSD and substance disorders materially connected to loss of self-control and substantial psychosocial stressors, applied aggregated discounts (guilty plea 25%, good character 12%, remorse 5%, personal circumstances including childcare and disadvantage 25%) producing a large overall reduction, rounded to a notional 24 months' imprisonment then imposed home detention as the least restrictive adequate sentence gi…
11 Oct 2022

R v BOWMAN [2022] NZHC 2622

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2622
Court

High Court

Preventive detention was declined. The Court concluded that although the offender demonstrated an escalating pattern of intimate partner violence and an elevated risk of future offending, factors including absence of prior lengthy imprisonment, equivocal expert assessments, remaining rehabilitative potential, and availability of post-release supervision options meant a lengthy finite sentence would adequately protect the community. The appropriate global finite sentence was 16 years' imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 8 years, together with a protection order under s123B Se…
23 Sept 2022

BIRCH v THE KING [2022] NZHC 2448

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2448
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court did not err: the 18-month starting point and overall 16-month sentence were within range given the seriousness of attempting to pervert the course of justice by bribing and dissuading the protected victim of domestic violence (aggravated by implied threat from associated violence); uplifts for prior family-violence convictions were justified; restrictive-bail credit was not warranted; and home detention was not the least-restrictive appropriate sentence because deterrence and denunciation required imprisonment.
18 May 2022

BERRETT v R [2022] NZCA 191

Citation

[2022] NZCA 191
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for recall is dismissed because the power to recall is narrow and exceptional; applicant failed to demonstrate a "very special reason" or new authoritative material warranting recall, and the allegations presented merely seek a re-run of issues properly decided at trial and on appeal.
8 Apr 2022

R v THOMPSON [2022] NZHC 720

Citation

[2022] NZHC 720
Court

High Court

Preventive detention was required because the offender displayed a sustained pattern of serious violent and sexual offending, credible expert assessments rated him at high to very high risk of reoffending despite prior intensive interventions and an ESO (which he breached), and a lengthy determinate sentence with an ESO would not provide adequate protection of the community; accordingly preventive detention imposed with a seven year minimum period and a concurrent six month sentence for perverting the course of justice.
10 Feb 2022

R v UNDERSEN [2022] NZHC 141

Citation

[2022] NZHC 141
Court

High Court

Finite sentence of 13 years and 7 months imprisonment with an MPI of nine years imposed; preventive detention declined because offender retains realistic rehabilitative potential, significant finite sentence plus potential for extended supervision order and the offender's age on release provided adequate community protection.
7 Oct 2021

HART-DEHAR v R [2021] NZHC 2684

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2684
Court

High Court

Further evidence (psychological report and mother's affidavit) was admitted as credible and cogent to reconcile inconsistent reports; however the sentencing Judge did not err in principle and the final cumulative sentences (27 months for sexual offending cumulative on existing 75 month sentence, plus 6 months for perverting the course of justice) were not manifestly excessive; discount for upbringing was modest given limited corroboration and limited nexus to the sexual offending; threshold for permanent name suppression under s200(2) was not met as there was no persuasive evidence publicatio…