New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Double counting in sentencing

Legal area

Court

19 Oct 2023

HIRAKA v R [2023] NZHC 2898

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2898
Court

High Court

A six month uplift for the unlawful possession of the shotgun was appropriate given the separate finding of possession with ammunition and public risk; however the sentencing Judge failed to account for 13.5 months spent on final recall which produced a form of double punishment and required an overall reduction of six months to avoid double punishment; the end sentence was therefore reduced from 32 months to 26 months imprisonment.
31 Jul 2019

HEKE v R [2019] NZHC 1833

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1833
Court

High Court

The Court upheld the starting point and the uplift for the quantity of methamphetamine but found the combined uplift for prior record and offending while on bail was excessive because it in part double counted conduct already addressed in earlier sentencing; reducing those uplifts by three months produced an appropriate sentence, resulting in replacement of the dangerous driving sentence from 32 months to 30 months' imprisonment.
6 Jul 2018

HINES v R [2018] NZCA 242

Citation

[2018] NZCA 242
Court

Court of Appeal

Conviction appeal dismissed because no legal error in trial judge's directions on circumstantial evidence, adequacy of prejudice warnings, or admissibility of DSS McNaughton's gang leadership evidence; sentence appeal allowed because part of the storage unit uplift double counted material already reflected in the manufacture sentence (requiring an 18-month reduction for parity) and because the appellant's severe end-stage renal failure and limited life expectancy meant an MPI was not warranted under the mercy principle (Sentencing Act s8(h)); overall sentence substituted to 17 years and MPI q…
18 Sept 2017

FIFIELD v R [2017] NZCA 410

Citation

[2017] NZCA 410
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time to file the appeal was granted; the Judge's starting point of three years seven months and subsequent adjustments (four month uplift for prior offending and reductions for guilty pleas and remorse) produced an end sentence of two years eleven months which was within the permissible range on the facts and not manifestly excessive; treating the abduction as a distinct aggravating feature did not constitute impermissible double counting and the victim impact material did not render the sentence disproportionate.

New Zealand Case Law

HIRAKA v R [2023] NZHC 2898

HEKE v R [2019] NZHC 1833

HINES v R [2018] NZCA 242

FIFIELD v R [2017] NZCA 410