New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Concurrent and cumulative sentences

Legal area

Court

25 Aug 2020

CARR & ANDERSON v R [2020] NZCA 357

Citation

[2020] NZCA 357
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the trial Judge's global starting point for Carr was excessive and reduced the global starter to 14 years; the s27 cultural report established a causal contribution to offending and warranted a 15% discount (Carr) with an additional 10% guilty plea discount, producing a substituted sentence of 10 years 6 months with an MPI of 5 years 3 months; the cumulative order imposing the Milford term consecutively was quashed and all sentences ordered concurrent; Anderson was granted extension of time, the s27 report warranted a 15% discount plus 10% guilty plea discount (total 25%), redu…
31 Jul 2020

DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM v R [2020] NZSC 74

Citation

[2020] NZSC 74
Court

Supreme Court

The statutory scheme limits total home detention to a maximum of 12 months; the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to impose a fresh 12-month home detention sentence that, combined with time previously served, would require more than 12 months' home detention in total. The appropriate remedy on this second appeal is to vary the Court of Appeal sentence to one that does not exceed the statutory maximum by reducing the home detention term to eight and a half months with a backdated start date (30 July 2019), retain post-detention conditions, and remit remaining community work.
25 Nov 2019

DAVIES v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3081

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3081
Court

High Court

The District Court starting point of 24 months was manifestly excessive; applying orthodox approach (lead charge selection, modest uplift for offending while on bail and for prior convictions, youth discount, and a 20% guilty plea discount) produces an end sentence of 11 months' imprisonment. The two-month uplift for prior convictions was justified; a 20% guilty plea discount was appropriate; the original sentence was restructured and replaced accordingly.
14 Aug 2019

THOMPSON v POLICE [2019] NZHC 1983

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1983
Court

High Court

Cumulative sentences were legally permissible and necessary because statutory maximums prevented full concurrency; after assessing starting points, uplift for prior offending, generous global guilty plea discount and a totality reduction, the High Court found the resulting sentence of three years and nine months was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive.
13 Jul 2017

DUFFELL v THE CROWN [2017] NZHC 1620

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1620
Court

High Court

Although the judge erred in aspects of his totality reasoning and there was minor ambiguity in sentencing notes, the overall end sentence of two years and eight months imprisonment was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed and sentence affirmed.
19 Oct 2016

ASHOR GORGUS V R [2016] NZCA 508

Citation

[2016] NZCA 508
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal is declined because the applicant failed to identify a reasonably available argument that the lower Courts erred; the sentencing judge's starting points and uplifts were orthodox and supported by precedent, the end sentence was within the available range, and the threshold for miscarriage of justice was not met.
18 Apr 2016

R v MARSH [2016] NZHC 747

Citation

[2016] NZHC 747
Court

High Court

Starting point fixed at 12 years for the most serious offending (Victim 4) due to premeditation, breach of trust, knife threat and severe strangulation; uplift of four years to reflect very serious additional offending against other victims producing a principal sentence of 16 years, reduced by a 15% youth discount to an end sentence of 13.5 years' imprisonment; minimum term imposed at 50% (6 years 9 months).
28 Nov 2008

FORREST V ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC AK CIV 2008-409-002820

Citation

openlaw-9aa1df25_b418_4320_86db_1c0684d66d24.pdf
Court

High Court

Detention is lawful because the sentencing notes and signed warrants unambiguously establish that the three-year sentence imposed by Judge Crosbie is cumulative on the earlier 4.5-year sentence imposed by Judge Moran; therefore habeas corpus relief is not available and the application is dismissed.