New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Premeditation

  • 4 Aug 2023

    COOK v R [2023] NZCA 342

    Citation
    [2023] NZCA 342
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court held Cameron v R was binding and there was no cogent reason to reclassify sexsomnia as generally constituting sane automatism; accordingly the conviction stands. On sentence the Court found the victim's vulnerability and high level of harm justified placement in the lower end of rape band two but that premeditation and the scale aggravator were not established to the degree found by the judge; the appropriate starting point was seven years, so the eight year rape sentence was quashed and substituted with seven years while the concurrent three year sentence for unlawful sexual connec…

  • 22 Feb 2023

    FANE v R [2023] NZCA 26

    Citation
    [2023] NZCA 26
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court held there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of both murders either as a participant in a common purpose and/or by his assistance and involvement (including use/possession of the shotgun and concerted action with his brother), the trial Judge's directions (including on party liability, unanimity and standard of proof) were adequate and not prejudicial, and the life sentences with a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment were appropriate and not manifestly unjust.

  • 30 Nov 2022

    PRASAD v R [2022] NZCA 588

    Citation
    [2022] NZCA 588
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court concluded the MPI of 18.5 years was within the available range despite minor methodological error by the judge; the offending involved unlawful entry, significant premeditation and extreme brutality, and none of the asserted mitigating factors (cultural background, remorse, prior good character) justified reducing the MPI to a manifestly unjust level, therefore the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

  • 8 Dec 2021

    R v SCHWAAB & MACKAY [2021] NZHC 3360

    Citation
    [2021] NZHC 3360
    Court
    High Court

    Court found the offending analogous to Taueki band two: the shooting involved extreme violence and significant firearm aggravation though premeditation was present only to a low degree; Schwaab as principal received a higher starting point (8 years 3 months) and MacKay a lower starting point (6 years); recognised mitigation (15% for background and 5% remorse for each defendant) and a 4 month EM bail credit for MacKay; unlawful possession sentences ordered concurrent; final sentences: Schwaab 6 years 7 months imprisonment for attempted murder (plus concurrent 3 months for possession), MacKay 4…

  • 3 Dec 2021

    R v TELEFONI [2021] NZHC 3295

    Citation
    [2021] NZHC 3295
    Court
    High Court

    Applying Taueki bands and analogous case law the offender's culpability fell within band three; a nine year starting point was selected, uplifted by 12 months for the injuring offence and three months for offending while subject to sentence, reduced by 10% for youth, 20% for cultural/background factors and 5% for remorse to 6 years 8 months, then reduced by 2 years 8 months for totality to reach a final sentence of four years' imprisonment for manslaughter to be served cumulatively on the existing sentence with the two year sentence for injuring with intent to be served concurrently; a second…

  • 25 Nov 2020

    RAY STANLEY PABIROWSKI v R [2020] NZCA 593

    Citation
    [2020] NZCA 593
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Given the combination of aggravating features—premeditation, an ambush of a vulnerable and helpless victim, targeted and life‑threatening attacks to the head, serious resulting injuries and the offender's significant size—the offending falls at the lower end of Taueki band two; the five year starting point and the resultant sentence of four years and nine months (after discounts) were within the available range and not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.

  • 19 Dec 2019

    NICHOLAS v R [2019] NZHC 3426

    Citation
    [2019] NZHC 3426
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the nine years six months’ sentence with a 50% MPI was within the available range: the offending involved high-degree premeditation, extreme and sustained violence, exploitation of a vulnerable victim and serious physical consequences, justifying the starting point and the MPI under s86; available psychological and pre-sentence material negated the necessity of a s27 cultural report and methamphetamine use lacked a demonstrated causal nexus to the offending to warrant further discount.

  • 9 Dec 2019

    SINGH v R [2019] NZCA 627

    Citation
    [2019] NZCA 627
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court held the nine year starting point for three consecutive rapes was within range but the sentencing Judge materially under‑discounted the appellants' personal circumstances; a 13% discount for Baljeet (reflecting youth and foreign nationality) and a 10% discount for Harpreet (reflecting foreign nationality and remorse/reparation) were appropriate, resulting in substituted sentences of seven years ten months (Baljeet) and eight years one month (Harpreet).

  • 7 Aug 2019

    R v SMITH [2019] NZHC 1910

    Citation
    [2019] NZHC 1910
    Court
    High Court

    Although the offence involved premeditation and a particularly vulnerable victim, the Court found the combination of severe, chronic carer burden, cumulative stress, a moderately severe recurrent major depressive disorder, longstanding mitigation factors, absence of prior offending, genuine remorse and low risk of reoffending made this case exceptional such that life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust; the appropriate finite sentence was 12 years with a minimum period of imprisonment of six years under s86.

  • 13 Jun 2019

    XIE v R [2019] NZCA 218

    Citation
    [2019] NZCA 218
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Five years was an appropriate starting point given aggravating features (weapon brought to scene, premeditation, significant injury); temporal gap and disproportion between provocation and violence meant any provocation discount could not reduce the starting point below five years; discounts for low reoffending risk, deportation and remorse were not available on the material; the psychologist's report and husband's affidavit were not admitted as fresh evidence.