New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Grievous bodily harm with intent

Legal area

Court

4 Oct 2023

GOODWIN v R [2023] NZHC 2771

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2771
Court

High Court

The judge lawfully exercised sentencing discretion by assessing and applying discounts for youth, rehabilitation and cultural/addiction factors in the aggregate; discounts for youth typically fall between 10–30% and may overlap with rehabilitation discounts, and a 25% overall discount for those factors was within the available range given the seriousness and aggravating features of the offending, so the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
27 Oct 2020

WAHO v R [2020] NZCA 526

Citation

[2020] NZCA 526
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court accepted the High Court starting point was within permissible range given appellant's leadership role and coordination of the assault, but held the sentencing judge under-credited the appellant's personal mitigation (s 27 report and restorative justice) and increased mitigation accordingly; the guilty plea discount of 20% was appropriate given timing; resulting sentence reduced from 3 years 3 months to 2 years 11 months; extension of time to appeal granted.
16 Oct 2018

MARTIN VICTOR LYTTELTON v R [2018] NZSC 94

Citation

[2018] NZSC 94
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised did not involve matters of public importance nor did they disclose a real risk of miscarriage: the trial Judge's directions were adequate and tailored to the facts, established intoxication law was not undermined, the sentencing Judge properly declined a s 24 hearing where trial evidence sufficed, and there was no appearance that prior sentencing notes influenced the independent sentence imposed.
13 Jun 2017

STEWART v R [2017] NZCA 246

Citation

[2017] NZCA 246
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that once the jury found the appellant caused the child's grievous injuries, there was more than sufficient circumstantial and expert evidence to infer intent to cause really serious harm (severity and pattern of injuries, requirement for substantial force and multiple impacts, appellant's lies and concealment), the trial judge's directions were adequate in the circumstances, and the expert's critical remarks did not render his evidence so partisan as to invalidate the verdict.
18 May 2016

R v LYTTELTON [2016] NZHC 1041

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1041
Court

High Court

Judge found defendant intended to kill Mr Ord and was culpable for attempted murder and grievous bodily harm; premeditation not significant but home invasion, use of gun and knife, persistence and severe injury were aggravating; mental illness and residual drug effect warranted a 30% reduction plus 5% for good character (total 35%); no discount for guilty plea or remorse; fixed a total starting point of 11 years reduced to an effective sentence of 7 years, with concurrent terms for the other offences.
23 Jul 2007

KARA V R SC 34/2007

Citation

SC 34/2007
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the case did not raise a matter of general or public importance and there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice; irrespective of uncertainty about the vehicle manoeuvre, the subsequent conduct plainly demonstrated premeditation and other aggravating factors justifying the increased sentence.

New Zealand Case Law

GOODWIN v R [2023] NZHC 2771

WAHO v R [2020] NZCA 526

MARTIN VICTOR LYTTELTON v R [2018] NZSC 94

STEWART v R [2017] NZCA 246

R v LYTTELTON [2016] NZHC 1041

KARA V R SC 34/2007