New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duration of supervision

Legal area

Court

26 Oct 2022

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v NARAYAN [2022] NZHC 2767

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2767
Court

High Court

Court found respondent met statutory eligibility and s107I(2)/s107IAA(1) criteria: pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending; intense sexual drive and predilection; limited self-regulatory capacity; lack of acceptance of responsibility and absence of concern for victims. The respondent's manipulative denials undermined contrary expert opinion. Given the nature of offences, limited genuine insight and incomplete treatment, a five year ESO is the minimum required to protect the community. The Parole Board is directed to impose an intensive monitoring condition under s107IAC(1).
19 Mar 2019

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v HAWKINS [2019] NZHC 482

Citation

[2019] NZHC 482
Court

High Court

The Court held that the respondent had a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and satisfied the s 107IAA qualifying criteria (intense urges, proclivity, limited self-regulation, lack of remorse/understanding), and that he presented a high risk of committing a relevant sexual offence; accordingly an extended supervision order was justified and the minimum period required for community safety was four years.
1 Oct 2018

SPEMANN v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2576

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2576
Court

High Court

The appellate court held there was no error of law: the sentencing Judge had regard to s 46 and properly exercised discretion to impose 12 months supervision to manage the clear and continued risk of drink-driving; the sentence was within statutory limits and not manifestly excessive.
15 Dec 2017

POU v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZCA 593

Citation

[2017] NZCA 593
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the District Court correctly found the statutory requirements for an ESO were met: the appellant demonstrated a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending, denied responsibility and lacked insight, and uncontradicted expert evidence established a high risk of future relevant sexual offending; given those findings and the absence of adequate alternative supervisory measures, a 10‑year ESO was appropriate and proportionate.
8 Sept 2017

CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v T [2017] NZHC 2179

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2179
Court

High Court

An ESO was required because the offender met the statutory threshold of a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and satisfied the s 107IAA criteria and posed a high risk of future relevant sexual offending; balancing the level and duration of risk, seriousness of harm, offender's age, offending pattern focused on domestic contexts, statutory child protection registration and possibility of future extension, a seven year six month ESO (minimum period necessary) was proportionate and sufficient to protect the community.
20 Nov 2006

BARR V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CA CA60/06

Citation

openlaw-345f7376_66dc_45fb_b100_6344a95154f3.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the District Court's discretion because on the whole of the evidence, including actuarial and clinical material (treated with caution where anomalies existed), the Judge was entitled to find a real and ongoing risk of sexual re-offending and the four-year ESO was the minimum period required to protect the community; the Judge applied the correct legal test and did not err in principle.

New Zealand Case Law

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v NARAYAN [2022] NZHC 2767

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v HAWKINS [2019] NZHC 482

SPEMANN v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2576

POU v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZCA 593

CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v T [2017] NZHC 2179

BARR V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CA CA60/06