New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Bribery

  • 21 May 2020

    R v CHAND [2020] NZHC 1077

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 1077
    Court
    High Court

    Defendant pleaded guilty to corruptly providing a financial gift to a Council agent; the court rejected a discharge under s 106 because consequences of conviction were not disproportionate; starting point fixed at 10 months' imprisonment reflecting objective gravity and defendant's lesser role, reduced by 40% (15% for good character/remorse and 25% for early guilty plea) to six months, and substituted with six months' community detention with electronically monitored curfew because custody was not required given lack of prior convictions and low risk of reoffending; no credit for disclosure b…

  • 12 May 2020

    R v RASILA [2020] NZHC 964

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 964
    Court
    High Court

    Application for discharge without conviction under s106 declined because defendant did not establish that the direct and indirect consequences of conviction were out of proportion to the gravity of the offending; starting point of 18 months imprisonment for the bribery offence was adopted, reduced by 15% (three months) for mitigating factors and a full 25% (four months) for the guilty plea resulting in an 11‑month sentence which the Court converted to five and a half months home detention given defendant's remorse, good character, rehabilitation steps and suitability of home detention conditi…

  • 1 Dec 2017

    R v FAAPOI [2017] NZHC 2969

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 2969
    Court
    High Court

    The judge selected a starting point of two years and eight months imprisonment reflecting the breach of trust by a prison officer but less serious than cases involving drugs. After deductions for a clean record (3 months), remorse (3 months) and a late guilty plea (approx 7.5%), the end sentence reduced to two years. Because no drugs were involved and on balance of the offender's mitigation and low risk of reoffending, the court concluded home detention was appropriate and imposed 12 months' home detention concurrent on the three charges.

  • 14 Nov 2017

    BORLASE V R [2017] NZCA 514

    Citation
    [2017] NZCA 514
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court held that s105(2) is satisfied by proof that the accused corruptly gave benefits with intent to influence acts or omissions in the official's capacity; no additional element that the accused intended the official to act improperly is required. On the facts the corrupt payments and sham arrangements established intent to influence and convictions and sentences were upheld.

  • 23 May 2017

    R v DUFRESNE [2017] NZHC 1082

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 1082
    Court
    High Court

    Application for discharge without conviction declined because the consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending; starting point set at two years' imprisonment; allowed 4 months discount for personal mitigation and 25% (five months) for early guilty plea yielding an indicative 15 months' sentence; because the adjusted sentence was less than two years a community-based sentence was appropriate and the court sentenced the offender to seven months' home detention on each charge, to be served concurrently.

  • 22 Feb 2017

    R v Borlase and Noone [2017] NZHC 236

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 236
    Court
    High Court

    Court found payments and benefits were not genuine consultancy fees but were provided with intent to influence officials; absence of proof of specific improper acts did not preclude liability; sentencing balanced aggravating factors (scale of payments, seven-year duration, serious breach of trust, public harm) against limited mitigation (good character, partial remorse by Noone), fixed starting points (Borlase total starting point 5 years 9 months reduced to end sentence 5 years 6 months; Noone starting 5 years 6 months reduced to end sentence 5 years) and ordered concurrent sentences.

  • 1 Sept 2016

    R v GEORGE [2016] NZHC 2067

    Citation
    [2016] NZHC 2067
    Court
    High Court

    Starting point set at three years and nine months imprisonment based on prolonged seven-year offending, sums received ($103,580), senior public position and potential systemic harm; reduced by 11 months for significant assistance, seven months for guilty pleas, and a further six months for good character and remorse to an effective one year nine months, which the Court converted to home detention; final orders imposed ten months home detention on each representative charge with standard s80C conditions.

  • 27 Oct 2011

    FIELD v R SC 3/2011

    Citation
    SC 3/2011
    Court
    Supreme Court

    Section 103(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 encompasses the corrupt acceptance of substantial benefits whether provided before or after the relevant official acts so long as the recipient accepted them 'corruptly' (i.e. knowingly in connection with the official acts); token, de minimis gifts are excluded; the trial Judge's directions were correct and the convictions stand.

  • 6 Jul 2007

    BURGESS V FIELD HC AK CIV 2007-404-3206

    Citation
    openlaw-e4293dd4_e31b_464b_b23e_aa3f8313457f.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Leave under s103(3) requires the High Court to perform a non‑trivial screening exercise: the applicant must present evidence showing the prosecution is proper and in good faith and there are no obvious legal or evidential defects or improper motives; this standard is higher than mere reasonable suspicion but lower than the committal requirement of evidence sufficient to put the defendant on trial.