New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Comparative sentencing

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2023

WILLIAMS v R [2023] NZCA 637

Citation

[2023] NZCA 637
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Judge was entitled to infer an intention to cause serious harm from the unprovoked, forceful, directed punch to the head with premeditation and aggravating post-offence conduct, so Taueki applied and a five-year starting point was available; the discounts (20% guilty plea, 10% youth, 10% cultural/social) were within available discretion given the offender's history and seriousness of the offence; the three-year imprisonment term was not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
1 Nov 2023

GRIMME v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 3067

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3067
Court

High Court

The 18‑month disqualification was manifestly excessive in the context of the offender's culpability (higher than momentary lapses but below some comparators), significant mitigation (remorse, good character, early plea) and a substantial community work component of 290 hours; consistent sentencing and comparison with authorities supported reducing the disqualification to 12 months starting 31 July 2023.
4 Apr 2023

R v YOUNES (Sentencing Notes) [2023] NZHC 744

Citation

[2023] NZHC 744
Court

High Court

Starting point set at 10 months' imprisonment based on comparative authorities and the seriousness of the principal offence plus the reasonably significant level of assistance and witness intimidation; applied cumulative discounts totalling 50% (20% for s27/cultural nexus, 20% for early guilty plea, 5% for genuine remorse, 5% for youth) reducing the sentence to five months imprisonment, then converted to the least restrictive appropriate outcome: two and a half months community detention and twelve months intensive supervision with conditions specified in the PAC report.
21 Sept 2021

JOHNSON v DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2021] NZHC 2480

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2480
Court

High Court

The High Court held the seven year starting point was not an error and was within the available range given the substantial volume, prevalence of category A and sadistic material, organisation, curation across devices, and prolonged engagement demonstrating premeditation and high culpability, therefore the sentence of four years and six months (after discounts) was not manifestly excessive.
4 Jun 2021

WEBBY v R [2021] NZCA 234

Citation

[2021] NZCA 234
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the sentencing judge did not err as the s 104 factors were identified, the starting point MPI was supported by appropriate comparator cases, the judge's reliance on those comparators without formulaically reciting the three‑step approach was permissible, and the resulting sentence of life with an MPI of 17 years 9 months was within range and not manifestly excessive.
14 Apr 2021

WITTIG v R [2021] NZCA 100

Citation

[2021] NZCA 100
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the starting points adopted by the District Court for both the objectionable publications offending and the Philippines live‑streaming sexual exploitation offending were within the available and appropriate range given the serious Category A material (penetrative acts, bestiality, sadism), the appellant's directing role, and the presence of other serious unrelated offending; the six month totality reduction was adequate; therefore the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
28 Jul 2020

JEFFERIES-SMITH v R [2020] NZCA 315

Citation

[2020] NZCA 315
Court

Court of Appeal

Given the Judge was entitled to find there was no immediate threat and that the appellant deliberately fired twice at a retreating victim, a 10-year starting point for manslaughter was within the available range; however, because the appellant had, at an early stage, made clear his willingness to plead guilty to manslaughter and failures to formally communicate that stance resulted from counsel transitions rather than the appellant's omission, he was entitled to a 20% discount, reducing the manslaughter sentence from nine to eight years; leave to adduce further evidence was granted.
22 Jul 2019

RUA v R [2019] NZHC 1730

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1730
Court

High Court

The High Court found no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of seriousness or in the exercise of sentencing discretion; the offending was moderately serious in the context of related confrontations, the credit for a late guilty plea and for restrictive bail was appropriately limited (guilty plea discount assessed near 7% and curfew credit modest), and the final sentence of three months' community detention plus six months' supervision was within the proper evaluative range; appeal dismissed.
29 May 2019

R v SHAHEEM & MARKS [2019] NZHC 1200

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1200
Court

High Court

Life imprisonment was appropriate for both defendants under s102; s104 did not apply. Court found Shaheem delivered fatal kicks to the head and was more culpable (aggravating factors: head attacks, victim vulnerability, multiple attackers, failure to seek help); starting point 11.5 years with 6 month uplift for prior violent convictions produced a 12 year minimum. Marks was a party who struck the initial blow and encouraged the assault but was less culpable; minimum period set at statutory floor of 10 years. Mental illness did not causally reduce culpability and was manageable in prison, so n…
7 May 2019

DEHAAR v R [2019] NZCA 143

Citation

[2019] NZCA 143
Court

Court of Appeal

Juror statements that they felt "uncomfortable" at defence counsel's manner of looking at them did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice; the trial judge's inquiry and directions were sufficient to safeguard a fair trial and it was not 'highly expedient' under Juries Act s 22 to discharge the jury; the appellant's sentence was within the appropriate starting point range and not so disparate as to require adjustment.