23 Mar 2023
The Court concluded the offending was moderately serious and that the available evidence did not establish the conviction itself caused the applicant's employment loss; consequences were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending under s107, so discharge without conviction was not warranted; appeal dismissed.
7 Mar 2023
Leave for a second appeal was declined because the Court was satisfied the District and High Courts properly assessed the gravity of the offending, appropriately applied mitigating discounts, reasonably concluded the consequences of conviction were not disproportionate nor likely to cause extreme hardship, and the applicant failed to meet the high threshold of a miscarriage of justice or public importance to justify a second appeal.
23 Nov 2022
The High Court, on rehearing, held the District Judge did not err: the offending was at the lower end of seriousness but sufficiently alarming given the target community; the appellant failed to demonstrate specific direct or indirect consequences of conviction that would be out of all proportion to that gravity, particularly given his prior convictions, so a discharge without conviction was not justified.
27 Oct 2022
The District Court correctly found the offending was of low gravity but the applicant failed to establish, on reliable evidence, that the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to that gravity; speculative assertions about travel, study and employment did not meet the real and appreciable risk threshold, and the victim's preference did not override statutory criteria, so discharge without conviction was properly refused.
12 Jul 2022
The Court held the District Judge did not err: the appellant's possession of circa 40g MDMA with cash, scales and bags indicated commerciality elevating gravity to moderate; the consequences of conviction (including final NZDF discharge and civilian employment difficulties) were not out of all proportion to that gravity, so refusal to discharge without conviction was correct.
16 Jun 2021
The High Court found the District Court erred by giving weight to the appellant's rejected explanation when assessing gravity and by not having sufficient evidence of the employment consequences; credible additional evidence showed a real and appreciable risk that a conviction would permanently impair his senior IT career, such consequences are out of all proportion to the low‑end gravity of the isolated breach, and therefore a discharge without conviction under s106/s107 is warranted.
10 Jun 2021
The High Court upheld the District Court: applying the three-step test the offending was of low gravity, the appellant failed to establish a real and appreciable risk that conviction would cause immigration or employment consequences, and therefore the consequences were not out of all proportion to the gravity; discharge without conviction was not warranted and the appeal is dismissed.
5 May 2021
The High Court found the District Court judge did not make a material error: objectively the assault was serious in the COVID-19 context and given the victim's compromised immune system, and after accounting for mitigation the gravity was assessed as moderate; the appellant failed to prove the direct or indirect consequences (loss of Dutch citizenship/passport or significant mental health or employment impacts) were shown to be out of all proportion to that gravity; accordingly the appeal was dismissed, leave to lodge out of time was granted, and suppression of the victim's identity ordered.
27 Apr 2021
After reassessing the offending and mitigation the Court found the gravity of offending to be between low and moderate and the consequences of conviction between low and moderate; those consequences were not out of all proportion to the gravity, therefore a discharge without conviction was not available and the District Court's refusal was upheld.
8 Apr 2021
The High Court held the District Court Judge did not err: the offending was of low to moderate gravity with aggravation from an earlier discharge and lack of rehabilitation; the indirect consequences claimed (liquor licence risk, immigration sponsorship) were speculative and are matters for statutory authorities to assess rather than for the Court to preempt; therefore the s107 threshold was not met and a discharge without conviction was correctly refused.