New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extended supervision order (eso)

Legal area

Court

15 Nov 2023

COREY REUBEN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZCA 564

Citation

[2023] NZCA 564
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the appellant "has had" a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending, the evidence did not establish that he presently poses a high risk of committing a relevant sexual offence as required by s 107I(2)(b)(i) and s 107IAA; expert opinion indicated risk was principally for non-relevant exposure offences and not a current high risk of relevant (contact or qualifying) sexual offending, so, given the significant rights limitations of an ESO and the requirement for strong justification, the ESO was quashed.
8 Nov 2023

R v HAMILTON [2023] NZHC 3138

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3138
Court

High Court

Starting point of 18 months imprisonment was appropriate for the offending; uplift of four months to account for prior indecent offending and repeated breaches of an ESO produced an end point of 22 months; mitigation from health assessor evidence and alcohol/trauma was rejected as insufficient and undermined by the defendant's denial, and preventive detention was not pursued by the Crown.
9 Mar 2021

R v PARKER [2021] NZHC 439

Citation

[2021] NZHC 439
Court

High Court

Preventive detention was declined; the Court imposed a determinate sentence of nine years' imprisonment (sexual violation lead offence) because, balancing the extreme violence and high risk of reoffending against the availability of intensive rehabilitative treatment opportunities, the potential protective effect of an Extended Supervision Order and the fact that the offender must serve the full term due to a second strike, a nine‑year determinate sentence (after uplift for priors and discount for plea) adequately protects the community.
13 Nov 2020

R v LAKE [2020] NZHC 3013

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3013
Court

High Court

Starting point fixed at eight years' imprisonment (upper band two of Taueki) for multiple forceful blows and stomps to the head causing serious injury; apply 10% uplift for prior similar violent offending and 20% mitigation for causal abusive childhood and cultural factors plus a 15% guilty plea discount yielding a net 25% reduction from the starting point to a finite term of six years, but preventive detention is necessary because the offender is likely to commit further qualifying violent offences absent successful targeted rehabilitation; therefore impose preventive detention with a minimu…
18 May 2020

COLEMAN v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 1033

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1033
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the habeas corpus application under s 14(1A)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act because habeas corpus was not the appropriate procedure to challenge the administration and conditions of the intensive supervision sentence and ISO; to the extent the applicant was detained at Tōruatanga, that detention was lawful under the conditions of the intensive supervision sentence and ISO and alternative remedies were available.
29 Nov 2019

MILNE v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 3137

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3137
Court

High Court

The Court held that Corrections' decision to disapprove the Sawyers Arms address and require immediate relocation was lawful and not unreasonable because it implemented a clear Parole Board direction, relied permissibly on concerns from a trusted service provider (CRC), and was justified by urgency and the public protection purpose of the ESO regime; any failure to disclose every concern did not render the decision unlawful or materially unfair and consideration of potential Tenancy Tribunal claims was not outcome-determinative.
1 Oct 2019

HOLLAND v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 2488

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2488
Court

High Court

The evidence of prior assaults was insufficient to show a likely causal risk that publication of identity now would cause extreme hardship or danger to safety; absent evidence that Corrections cannot protect the defendant, the District Court did not err in finding the s200 threshold not met and correctly declined suppression.
19 Dec 2017

GRANT v R [2017] NZCA 614

Citation

[2017] NZCA 614
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court admitted the independent psychological report as fresh evidence and held that, given the appellant's youth and the developmental evidence about brain maturation plus the availability of an ESO, a finite determinate sentence with targeted intervention could provide adequate protection; accordingly preventive detention was not justified and was quashed, replaced by a 12-year determinate sentence cumulative on the existing term with a six-year minimum on the lead disfiguring offence.
27 Apr 2017

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v MCINTOSH [2017] NZHC 793

Citation

[2017] NZHC 793
Court

High Court

The Court approved withdrawal of the PPO application because the Parole Board had varied the respondent's ESO to impose conditions that sufficiently addressed the Chief Executive's public protection concerns; accordingly the proceedings were ordered discontinued effective upon commencement of those amended ESO conditions and the interim detention order was discharged on that contingency; the Court permanently sealed the file because of the sensitive nature of materials filed by the applicant and personal information provided by the respondent.
21 Dec 2016

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR CORRECTIONS v DOUGLAS [2016] NZHC 3184

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3184
Court

High Court

All four s13(2) characteristics (intense sexual drive, limited self-regulation, absence of operative victim empathy, and poor interpersonal relationships/social isolation) were established by evidence to a high level and together demonstrate a severe disturbance in behavioural functioning; on the balance of probabilities the respondent therefore poses a very high risk of imminent serious sexual offending if unsupervised or released, and a Public Protection Order is warranted (PPO imposed rather than ESO due to primacy of protecting potential victims and insufficiency of certainty from a 12-mo…