New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recall to prison

Legal area

Court

5 Oct 2022

R v TAMAL EDWARD MCMEEKAN [2022] NZHC 2557

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2557
Court

High Court

Defendant's role was at the top end of the 'lesser' category under Zhang, justifying reduction of the Band 5 starting point to 7.5 years (90 months); apply a 10% uplift for prior offending then discounts of 20% (guilty plea), 10% (established disadvantage/PTSD under s27) and 7.5% (time on recall credit equating to six months) producing an overall 27.5% reduction from the 90-month starting point, resulting in an effective sentence of five years and five months for the methamphetamine offence; concurrent terms for related offences and no minimum period under s86 were imposed.
4 Oct 2021

WIKI v R [2021] NZHC 2631

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2631
Court

High Court

The Judge did not err: imposing concurrent sentences was a lawful exercise of sentencing discretion intended to preserve the earlier sentence expiry date given the appellant's recall and low likelihood of parole; s85(2) is principally engaged by cumulative sentences and the 21‑month term was not disproportionate to the overall gravity of the offending.
18 Feb 2020

MOREHU v R [2020] NZHC 196

Citation

[2020] NZHC 196
Court

High Court

Failure to acknowledge that time spent in custody following parole recall can attract a discretionary credit was an error; to avoid double punishment courts should allow a discount for recall time (commonly around two-thirds of the recall period), and where such an error affects the overall sentence the appellate court will adjust the sentence accordingly; applying that approach a five month discount for 11 months recall was appropriate and warranted substituting the sentence from 2 years 7 months to 2 years 2 months' imprisonment.
22 Oct 2019

JEFFERIES v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2702

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2702
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because the Judge's starting point of eight months was within range and lenient given premeditation, attack to the head, injury, and the appellant's organising role and violent history; the appellant's role as organiser made him substantially culpable notwithstanding he was not the physical assailant; the victim impact statement, admitted as fresh evidence, did not alter sentencing because its relevant facts were already known and some allegations were irrelevant; no additional discrete discount for time on recall was warranted given the lenient starting point and max…
7 Apr 2017

PEARSON v NZ POLICE [2017] NZHC 666

Citation

[2017] NZHC 666
Court

High Court

Appeal allowed: the District Court sentence was adjusted only on computational grounds — the appellant was entitled to the full 25% guilty plea discount and a five week allowance for time in custody following recall; applying a nine month starting point uplifted six months for prior record, then deducting 25% and five weeks results in a substituted cumulative sentence of 10 months imprisonment.
24 Mar 2017

HE v R [2017] NZCA 77

Citation

[2017] NZCA 77
Court

Court of Appeal

Given the quantities of methamphetamine and ephedrine, the presence of firearms and large sums of cash, and the appellant's relevant prior convictions and offending while on parole, the 14 year starting point and the uplifts were within the available range; no impermissible double counting arose from recall because the sentence was made cumulative (which reduced the practical effect of the MPI); discounts were appropriate and overall the 12 year sentence with a seven year MPI was not manifestly excessive.
28 Jul 2015

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v WILSON [2015] NZHC 1734

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1734
Court

High Court

Where the statutory release date has changed due to recall and imposition of a cumulative sentence and the parties agree on the new date, the High Court will formally vary the existing extended supervision order so its commencement date matches the offender's current statutory release date under the Parole Act.
30 May 2013

WILSON V THE NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD CA632/2012 [2013] NZCA 190

Citation

[2013] NZCA 190
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed as moot because the appellant's recall removed the practical underpinning of the challenge to release conditions; keeping the appeal in abeyance pending a possible s 68 appeal was inappropriate because any future Parole Board decision can be challenged by fresh proceedings or judicial review.