New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Historic sexual offending

Legal area

Court

2 Dec 2021

R v BROWNE [2021] NZHC 3286

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3286
Court

High Court

Court adopted a starting point of 4 years for the lead sexual violation charge, applied an uplift of 6 years for the pattern, scale and premeditation of additional indecency offences to reach a global starting point of 10 years, then applied a 35% total personal mitigation discount (25% guilty plea, 5% age/disability, 5% restorative justice) producing an effective sentence of 6.5 years' imprisonment on the sexual/offence charges and a concurrent 12 months for possession of objectionable material; ordered placement on the Child Sex Offender Register and publication restrictions for victims.
17 Aug 2021

R v LINDSAY [2021] NZHC 2160

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2160
Court

High Court

Starting point fixed at 24 months' imprisonment based on aggravating features (breach of trust, skin-to-skin genital contact, multiple victims, age disparity, harm); applied discounts totalling 45% (15% reintegration/good character, 5% remorse, 25% guilty plea) reducing to an effective term of 13 months, then converted to concurrent home detention terms of six months and two weeks due to low risk of reoffending, defendant's rehabilitation and community functioning; declined to place name on Child Sex Offenders Register because statutory s 9(3) factors indicated low ongoing risk; made suppress…
23 Jul 2020

P (CA470/2017) v R [2020] NZCA 304

Citation

[2020] NZCA 304
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the contested expert memory affidavits did not assist the decisive appellate question and declined to admit them; Dr Ahmad's memory-related evidence at trial was not materially prejudicial or outcome-determinative; evidence about a foster daughter's complaint was admissible for the limited non-hearsay purpose of explaining the complainant's motive to report and s8 did not require exclusion; the judge's consent direction and trial counsel's tactical leading of the defendant did not cause a miscarriage of justice; prosecutor's comments were not of sufficient impropriety to o…
5 Jun 2020

B (SC 18/2020) v R [2020] NZSC 52

Citation

[2020] NZSC 52
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed expert evidence on memory was not cogent or impartial, conflicted with material trial evidence and corroborating admissions (notably the applicant's post‑charge admission to his son), and therefore would not create a sufficient prospect of success or risk of miscarriage to justify granting leave; the case is not an appropriate vehicle to resolve the broader question about expert memory evidence.
4 Dec 2019

MARCUS SHANE SOLOMON v R [2019] NZCA 616

Citation

[2019] NZCA 616
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that although s 322 applies where offences were committed when the accused was a young person, on the facts the delay was not unduly protracted and there was no unnecessary delay by authorities, so the discretion to dismiss under s 322 did not arise; even if it had, the seriousness, persistence of offending into adulthood, multiple complainants and nature of offences justified refusing to dismiss; no miscarriage arose from not recalling a witness and no breach of s 92 occurred because the defence witness had been afforded the opportunity to address contradictions and the Crown…
30 Oct 2019

MACGILLIVRAY v R [2019] NZCA 522

Citation

[2019] NZCA 522
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the judge erred by not giving a specific s122 warning about prejudice from deceased potential witnesses, the trial judge's general directions on delay and memory, the defence and Crown cross-examination, and counsel's addresses sufficiently brought the prejudice issues to the jury; cross-examination on the redacted diary entry and the absence of a s122 motive warning regarding the ex-wife did not render the trial unfair; suppression under s200 was unsupported and declined.
27 Mar 2018

K (CA299/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 72

Citation

[2018] NZCA 72
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the sexual offending was sufficiently serious under s86 (as worded 30 June 2002–7 July 2004) and the sentencing Judge did not err in principle or in exercising discretion to impose an MPI order for denunciation and accountability; accordingly the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
14 Dec 2017

P v R [2017] NZHC 3135

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3135
Court

High Court

The Judge did not err in exercising sentencing discretion: the appellant's continued denial of the majority of offending and minimal remorse justified the limited discount for his long period without reoffending; the starting point and final custodial sentence were within range and precluded home detention under s16 Sentencing Act 2002, so the appeal is dismissed.
12 Dec 2017

ROSS v R [2017] NZCA 587

Citation

[2017] NZCA 587
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the Court found no miscarriage of justice: counsel's decisions were informed and tactical, supported by contemporaneous documents and investigator advice, and proposed witnesses would not have materially assisted but posed risks; counsel's closing adequately presented the defence; the judge's directions on reliability, propensity and dates, viewed in context of the trial, were adequate to prevent a real risk of an unsafe verdict; and even if some deficiency in the s122 warning existed, the Crown case (identifications and corroborative evidence) was strong such…
5 Dec 2017

ANAND V R [2017] NZCA 566

Citation

[2017] NZCA 566
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time to appeal granted; appeal against conviction dismissed because missing records, deceased or uncalled witnesses, jury composition and appellant's health did not render trial unfair or cause miscarriage of justice; appeal against sentence dismissed because the sentencing judge correctly identified aggravating factors, applied appropriate starting points and totality principles and the resulting 13‑year sentence fell within the available range given the historical context and offending.