New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Manifestly unjust test

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2022

COLLINGS v R [2022] NZCA 605

Citation

[2022] NZCA 605
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the appellant's personal circumstances and reactionary nature of the offending did not displace the statutory presumption in favour of life imprisonment; the conduct (deliberate acceleration, continued acceleration despite awareness, driving away without assistance) established culpability warranting life imprisonment and an MPI of 11 years which was within the appropriate range and not manifestly excessive.
28 Oct 2021

R v VAN HEMERT [2021] NZHC 2877

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2877
Court

High Court

Life imprisonment is imposed because the statutory presumption for murder applies and it is not manifestly unjust here; s104 factors (brutality, victim vulnerability, some premeditation) set a 17‑year starting minimum, which is reduced by 20% to reflect the defendant's significant mental illness and lack of prior violent convictions and further reduced by two years for guilty plea, resulting in a minimum period of imprisonment of 11.5 years before parole eligibility.
14 Jul 2021

R v SMITH [2021] NZCA 318

Citation

(2021) 29 CRNZ 830
Court

Court of Appeal

Court found s104(1)(g) applied (victim particularly vulnerable) but an MPI of 17 years would be manifestly unjust given the offender's severe mental health deterioration, carer burnout, remorse and low risk of reoffending; however the gravity of the offence (premeditation, gross breach of trust, child victim) meant it was not manifestly unjust to impose life imprisonment, so the High Court's finite sentence was quashed and substituted with life imprisonment with an MPI of 10 years.
31 Jul 2020

R v MCCONACHIE [2020] NZHC 1887

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1887
Court

High Court

The court held that the offender's limited intellectual functioning and mood/adjustment disorders did not make life imprisonment manifestly unjust; given the premeditated, brutal, public nature of the killing and the public safety risk, life imprisonment was required and the statutory minimum period of 10 years was appropriate.
5 Mar 2020

R v MITAI-NGATAI [2020] NZHC 410

Citation

[2020] NZHC 410
Court

High Court

Although the statutory scheme required imposition of the maximum seven year term for a third 'strike' indecent assault, the judge concluded it would be manifestly unjust to order the sentence be served without parole because the offending was at the lower end of indecent assault, the defendant's personal circumstances and willingness to engage in rehabilitation reduced the proportionality of denying parole, and the medical evidence could not be given full weight due to lack of access to records; accordingly the court imposed seven years' imprisonment but did not order that it be served withou…
19 Dec 2019

R v JIANG [2019] NZHC 3442

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3442
Court

High Court

Life imprisonment was not manifestly unjust because the offending was not exceptional or analogous to mercy killings, severe mental impairment or significantly lesser culpability; balancing aggravating factors (selfish motive, failure to seek assistance, lack of remorse) against mitigating factors (age, prior good character, lack of convictions, possible hardship as a foreign national) warranted imposing the statutory minimum period; therefore impose life with minimum period of 10 years.
8 Feb 2018

R v PUNA [2018] NZHC 79

Citation

[2018] NZHC 79
Court

High Court

Life imprisonment without parole would be manifestly unjust given the defendant's youth at the time of the offence, demonstrable remorse and cooperation, heavy intoxication as a causal factor, the relatively minor nature of the first-strike offending, and realistic prospects for rehabilitation; accordingly impose life imprisonment with a 14-year minimum non-parole period instead of the statutory 17-year starting point.

New Zealand Case Law

COLLINGS v R [2022] NZCA 605

R v VAN HEMERT [2021] NZHC 2877

R v SMITH [2021] NZCA 318

R v MCCONACHIE [2020] NZHC 1887

R v MITAI-NGATAI [2020] NZHC 410

R v JIANG [2019] NZHC 3442

R v PUNA [2018] NZHC 79