New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Demanding with menaces

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2022

COWELL v POLICE [2022] NZHC 3088

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3088
Court

High Court

The High Court concluded the District Court did not err: a two-year starting point for demanding with menaces was within available range given group intimidation and gang-associated aggravation; a three-month uplift for weapons and a four-month uplift for prior convictions were justified; discounts (17% for plea and ~17.5% total for personal mitigation and rehabilitation access) were appropriate; the total sentence of 21 months was not wholly disproportionate and therefore not manifestly excessive, so the appeal was dismissed.
27 Oct 2022

R v BROWN-MARTIN [2022] NZHC 2805

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2805
Court

High Court

The lead offending was demanding with menaces: the Court set a starting point at 2.5 years, uplifted one year for associated firearms and driving offending yielding a 3.5 year adjusted starting point for Brown-Martin; after allowances for priors, background and guilty plea (net 23% reduction) Brown-Martin was sentenced to 32 months imprisonment. For Witehira, the Court set a 14 month starting point and, after recognising background, EM bail time and guilty plea (net 80% reduction), imposed 5 weeks home detention; firearms and ammunition were forfeited and Brown-Martin received a concurrent 6-…
12 May 2022

YOUNG v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1009

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1009
Court

High Court

The original 20 month aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive because the starting points and cumulative uplift were incorrect and insufficient weight was given to mitigation (including remorse, ill health linked to alcoholism and rehabilitation prospects); the appropriate approach was to set starting points of 16 months for the demanding with menaces and five months for the breach (total 21), apply no uplift for dishonesty, allow a combined mitigation discount to 33%, and impose a substituted sentence of 14 months' imprisonment (11 months on demanding with menaces and 3 months cumulative…
16 Dec 2021

J (CA32/2021) v R [2021] NZCA 690

Citation

[2021] NZCA 690
Court

Court of Appeal

Given the appellant's florid manic psychotic episode causally linked to the offending, her positive prognosis with treatment, lack of prior convictions and remorse, the court assessed the gravity of the offending as low and held the general consequences of conviction would be out of all proportion to that low gravity; accordingly the conviction and sentence were quashed and the appellant discharged without conviction.
18 Nov 2020

BISHOP v R [2020] NZHC 3050

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3050
Court

High Court

No error in the sentencing Judge's approach: any mischaracterisation in the PSR of the lead charge did not materially affect the outcome; EM bail non-compliances were minor and not determinative; the Judge properly declined home detention because of Mr Bishop's leading violent role, negative pre-sentence report and extensive criminal history, and therefore the sentence of 21 months imprisonment was justified.
25 Sept 2019

R v WHAANGA [2019] NZHC 2427

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2427
Court

High Court

Starting point of 21 months imprisonment for demanding with menaces was appropriate given precedents; uplift of six months for the theft and six months for prior similar convictions produced a 33 month starting point; after a 20% discount for an early guilty plea the effective sentence became 26 months imprisonment, imposed as two years two months on the demanding with menaces charge with six months on the theft charge to be served concurrently; defendant ineligible for home detention.
17 Oct 2018

BENNER v R [2018] NZHC 2675

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2675
Court

High Court

The Court held the Judge's starting point of two and a half years for the combined offending was within the available range given aggravating features (targeted vigilante-type conduct and injury), rejected the disparity argument due to materially greater culpability of the appellant compared to co-offender, found the guilty plea discount should be increased from 10% to at least 15%, upheld that cumulative sentences were appropriate because the offences were distinct in time and place and would not practically extend parole ineligibility, and corrected a sentencing error by reducing the demand…
19 Sept 2018

HEWITT v R [2018] NZCA 374

Citation

[2018] NZCA 374
Court

Court of Appeal

The prosecutor's challenge to the appellant's alibi crossed the protection in s32 of the Evidence Act 2006 and the judge was obliged to give the statutory s32 direction but failed to do so; despite that breach, on the facts and strength of the Crown case the omission did not cause a miscarriage of justice and convictions stand; however the original sentence was manifestly excessive and was reduced to reflect totality, treatment and rehabilitation needs, and inappropriate uplift for historical convictions was not sustained; permanent suppression ordered for specified paragraphs of judgment.
3 Nov 2017

WEBSTER v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2685

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2685
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court sentence was not manifestly excessive and should be upheld. The Court endorsed an orthodox assessment: set an appropriate starting point for the demanding with menaces (within the Regan/Opetaia/Witute spectrum), uplifted for associated theft and multiple driving and other offences, imposed a further uplift for offending on bail, and allowed discounts for youth and guilty plea; overall the original sentence of three years' imprisonment fell within the available range and the appeal was dismissed.
12 Oct 2017

REID v R [2017] NZCA 451

Citation

[2017] NZCA 451
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the four year starting point for aggravated robbery was within range given aggravating features (weapon use causing a cut, forced entry, threats to family and property, vulnerability of victim and element of home invasion); the 12 month uplift for demanding with menaces was appropriate because it involved separate offending and separate victims; the aggregate sentence of five years and six months was not manifestly excessive, and the appeal against sentence was dismissed.