New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Intimate visual recording

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2023

WONG v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 1677

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1677
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court's starting point of 30 months' imprisonment for the totality of the offending because the offending involved significant aggravating features (serious harm to the victim, breach of trust as an Uber driver, the victim's intoxication and sleep rendering her vulnerable, and the taking of multiple intimate images). The Court allowed discrete mitigation for good character and genuine remorse (combined with a guilty plea discount) but concluded the resulting home detention sentence of 10 months was appropriate and that community detention could not adequatel…
5 May 2023

MORRISON v POLICE [2023] NZHC 1060

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1060
Court

High Court

The sentencing Judge erred by expressing a presumption that "sexual predators should go to jail" and failing to undertake a discrete analysis whether home detention could achieve denunciation, deterrence, protection and rehabilitation; given the offender's remorse, engagement with treatment, suitability of an electronically monitored address and availability of restrictive conditions, home detention was the least restrictive sentence that could meet sentencing purposes and the imprisonment sentence was substituted with two months' home detention and 12 months' post‑detention conditions.
30 Jul 2021

DASS v R [2021] NZCA 356

Citation

[2021] NZCA 356
Court

Court of Appeal

Counsel provided competent, comprehensive advice that defences existed but were unlikely to succeed in light of the evidence (including the recording and complainant's credible testimony); the appellant entered informed guilty pleas to obtain known benefits and has not shown counsel's advice was deficient or that a miscarriage of justice would result, therefore the convictions stand and the appeal is dismissed.
2 Jul 2021

CARPENTER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 1634

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1634
Court

High Court

The judge did not err: the offending was premeditated and highly intrusive so a conviction would not have consequences out of all proportion given the industry's reliance on trust, legitimate employer interests, and existing publicity; however the protection order was unnecessary because objective assessment showed negligible risk of future violence given the single incident, ended relationship and no contact, so the protection order was quashed.
18 Jun 2021

KI ANUFE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZCA 253

Citation

[2021] NZCA 253
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because it is not seriously arguable the courts below erred: the offending was premeditated, repeated and moderately serious; liability to deportation for a residence class visa holder arises from the offending and the conviction triggers a statutory process but does not make deportation inevitable; immigration authorities must be allowed to consider personal circumstances and the high threshold for humanitarian relief, so no miscarriage of justice or matter of general/public importance requiring this Court's review was shown.
6 Nov 2019

R v SRH [2019] NZHC 2893

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2893
Court

High Court

Given the prolonged, varied and premeditated sexual offending against numerous vulnerable victims, the gross breach of trust and the assessed high risk of reoffending absent intensive treatment, a sentence of preventive detention was necessary to protect the community; preventive detention imposed on sexual violation charges with a six year minimum period before eligibility to apply for parole, and concurrent finite terms imposed on remaining charges; name suppression ordered to protect victim family members.
21 Dec 2018

HARRIS v R [2018] NZCA 632

Citation

[2018] NZCA 632
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the prior sentence and undertook its own sentencing exercise: the offending against the youngest and repeatedly drugged complainant (J) was the lead offence with a starting point of four years uplifted by three years to reflect offending against other complainants (total starting point seven years); reduced three months for instrument forfeiture, reduced further by a 15% guilty plea discount and a 5% remorse discount, producing an end sentence of five years and four months' imprisonment, imposed by specified concurrent and cumulative component sentences.
9 Oct 2018

BENATZKY v R [2018] NZCA 413

Citation

[2018] NZCA 413
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the trial judge's limitations on juror access to the video and comments in the summing up were not prejudicial because the video's content had limited probative value on the contested issues and the matters relied on by the defence would not be resolved by closer viewing; the jury did not seek replay; the evidence supported findings of intent to harm in sending the images and video under s22 HDC Act, and the convictions were therefore affirmed.
16 Sept 2016

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v THOMAS [2016] NZHC 2174

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2174
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court misdirected itself by requiring proof that the defendant knew the laptop would be used in the bedroom and that intimate scenes would be captured; the correct test for recklessness is appreciation or foresight of the risk that an intimate visual recording may be made. The misdirection was sufficiently material to constitute a miscarriage of justice on the acquittal, so the acquittal was quashed and a new trial ordered on the s216H charge; however, given the trial judge's factual findings the Court could not conclude as a matter of law that guilt was the o…
28 Jan 2016

GUY v POLICE [2016] NZHC 27

Citation

[2016] NZHC 27
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish that publication of his name would be likely to cause extreme hardship to his mother; the judge correctly found the incremental stress from publication speculative and largely attributable to the offending itself, so the threshold for suppression was not met.