New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre-sentence detention

Legal area

Court

4 May 2023

JOSHUA PERA VAN SILFHOUT v UDAYA LAKSHMAN AGAS PATHIRANNEHELAGE [2023] NZSC 47

Citation

[2023] NZSC 47
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and framed the determinative question as whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted s 64(1) of the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Act 2005 to include time spent in pre-sentence detention as time 'serving a sentence of imprisonment', thereby suspending the limitation period; no final substantive determination on that question was made at this stage.
8 Feb 2023

VAN SILFHOUT v PATHIRANNEHELAGE [2023] NZCA 5

Citation

[2023] NZCA 5
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal and held that pre-sentence detention is to be included in the period during which the limitation period is suspended under s 64 of the PVCA. The bespoke definition in s 64(2) and the statutory context (including the Parole Act's deeming of pre-sentence detention as time served) govern calculation of the suspension period; therefore remand custody counted toward suspension and the victim's claim was timely.
28 Nov 2022

ROWE v THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AT LEVIN [2022] NZHC 3134

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3134
Court

High Court

The adjournment was lawful: consideration of totality was relevant because the alleged Whanganui offending occurred while on bail for the Levin charges and assessing overall culpability together was within the interests of justice; any reference to pre-sentence detention was irrelevant but immaterial to the decision; there was no breach of NZBORA rights; judicial review relief was declined.
31 Aug 2021

VAN SILFHOUT v PATHIRANNEHELAGE [2021] NZHC 2268

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2268
Court

High Court

Pre-sentence detention is included within the period during which the limitation period is suspended under s64 of the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Act 2005 because, read in its statutory and sentencing context and purposively, 'serving a sentence' in this technical field includes time served in pre-sentence custody; the Tribunal must assess limitation periods even if not pleaded; the Tribunal erred in law in its approach but on correct interpretation the respondent's claim was lodged in time and the appeal is dismissed.
28 Jan 2021

REPIA v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZHC 36

Citation

[2021] NZHC 36
Court

High Court

The applicant's detention is lawful because he is detained under a valid committal warrant and the 87 days spent in residential rehabilitation constitute time on bail and are excluded from the Parole Act's statutory definition of pre-sentence detention (s91) and by s95; therefore habeas corpus did not require release and the application is dismissed.
18 Dec 2020

ROPITINI v R [2020] NZHC 3426

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3426
Court

High Court

The District Court failed to apply an appropriate discount for 334 days spent on recall which ought to have been taken into account in sentencing; applying established appellate practice (a 66% discount of time on recall in this context) and appropriate uplifts/discounts yields a sentence of nine months, thus the imposed 11 months was manifestly excessive and must be quashed and replaced; the presence of $2,900 could properly be treated as an aggravating factor given the accepted summary of facts linked the cash to supply.
7 Aug 2020

HALL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 1988

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1988
Court

High Court

Time spent in custody on parole recall is not pre-sentence detention but courts should generally allow a discount for that time to avoid double punishment; under Moses the adjusted starting point excludes personal uplifts for prior convictions and offending on parole (those are step 2 items); applied to facts: adjusted starting point 22 months; uplifts 8 months (4 for prior convictions, 4 for offending on parole); discounts 6.5 months (restorative justice and guilty plea) and 9 months (66% of ~13 months on recall); substituted sentence 14.5 months imprisonment and appeal allowed.
11 Jun 2020

POLAAPAU v R [2020] NZCA 227

Citation

[2020] NZCA 227
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal, holding the District Court erred by failing to stand back and apply the totality principle after structuring starting points and uplifts, resulting in an excessive combined starting point; the appropriate overall starting point was no more than 11 years, and after applying the 50% combined discount for youth/personal circumstances and guilty pleas the correct sentence is five and a half years' imprisonment.
20 Feb 2020

C v R [2020] NZHC 225

Citation

[2020] NZHC 225
Court

High Court

Section 27 does not implicitly dismiss charges when a defendant is released under s25; absent a court stay under s27 the original proceedings remain alive and mirrored replacement charges may be laid, and periods of remand detention served under the initial proceedings are pre-sentence detention under s91 Parole Act 2002 and therefore count as time served for sentencing purposes; conviction appeal dismissed, sentence appeal allowed and remitted for resentencing with remand time treated as time served.
18 Dec 2019

PRINCE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 3381 [18 December 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3381
Court

High Court

The phrase 'sentence expiry date' must be read to mean the date on which the offender actually ceased to be subject to the sentence (i.e. the date the sentence, as imposed or substituted on appeal, took effect), and cannot be a date preceding the imposition of the sentence; applying that construing, Prince's sentence expiry date was 7 June 2019 and the release conditions expired six months later on 7 December 2019.