New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Historical sexual offending

Legal area

Court

10 Jul 2020

R v MORRIS (aka PHIPPS) [2020] NZHC 1662

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1662
Court

High Court

Preventive detention imposed because the offender, despite age and prior treatments, poses a high and ongoing risk of qualifying sexual offending (confirmed by expert assessments and 2017 offending), prior Court of Appeal warning and failure of prior interventions meant no finite sentence would adequately protect the public; minimum period fixed at five years; concurrent determinate terms imposed for non‑qualifying historical counts resulting in an effective sentence of preventive detention.
7 Feb 2020

R v LB [2020] NZHC 94

Citation

[2020] NZHC 94
Court

High Court

The District Court's 11‑year starting point was outside the available range for these offences (proper range 12–13 years), and the Judge compounded error by applying excessive overlapping discounts including impermissible double‑counting of youth and related mitigation and by imposing home detention notwithstanding the s128B presumption; these errors produced a manifestly inadequate sentence, therefore the appeal was allowed and a custodial sentence of 4 years 3 months imprisonment substituted.
5 Dec 2019

SMITH v R [2019] NZCA 621

Citation

[2019] NZCA 621
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time was granted; the propensity evidence was properly admissible with standard directions and did not require additional bespoke direction; absence of a further s122 reliability warning did not occasion a miscarriage given the defence case and available evidence and the general caution given; the judge's reference to "the prisoner" was an archaic, harmless remark made outside the jury and promptly corrected and did not breach the presumption of innocence affecting the verdict.
20 Mar 2019

NICHOLSON v POLICE [2019] NZHC 493

Citation

[2019] NZHC 493
Court

High Court

The Judge's failure to expressly apply a totality assessment to the 1997 and 1998 offending was not a material error given changed and uncertain salient facts for retrospective sentencing; the sentence as imposed was within range and not manifestly excessive, therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
12 Dec 2017

DAVID STANLEY TRANTER v R [2017] NZSC 187

Citation

[2017] NZSC 187
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the alleged fresh evidence was either inadmissible or not material to the safety of the convictions, the Court of Appeal properly refused recall, and the sentencing ground did not raise a miscarriage of justice or sufficient public importance in this case to justify grant of leave.
16 Jun 2016

ROPER v R [2016] NZCA 263

Citation

[2016] NZCA 263
Court

Court of Appeal

Prosecutor's comments denying motive to lie did not relieve the Crown of its burden because they were directed against the defence theory of collusion and were accompanied by clear judicial directions that the onus remained on the Crown; although judge ought to have expressly warned against illegitimate propensity reasoning, the summing‑up as a whole sufficiently directed the jury to decide each count separately and avoided miscarriage of justice; sentencing classification as a band four (most serious) case was correct and a 14 year starting point (reduced to 13 for age) was within available…
9 May 2016

ROBINSON v R [2016] NZCA 188

Citation

[2016] NZCA 188
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held P's propensity evidence remained admissible because the additional trial material did not undermine the pre-trial admissibility ruling; and the correct MPI law to apply is the current Sentencing Act provision (as it is the lesser penalty under the retrospectivity rule), so the Judge's MPI order stands.

New Zealand Case Law

R v MORRIS (aka PHIPPS) [2020] NZHC 1662

R v LB [2020] NZHC 94

SMITH v R [2019] NZCA 621

NICHOLSON v POLICE [2019] NZHC 493

DAVID STANLEY TRANTER v R [2017] NZSC 187

ROPER v R [2016] NZCA 263

ROBINSON v R [2016] NZCA 188