28 Mar 2023
Starting point of 28 months was within the available range; the discounts for mitigation (15% guilty plea and 10% other mitigation) were within judicial discretion; decision to impose imprisonment rather than home detention was rational on the facts; appeal allowed only to impose post-detention special conditions for six months as recommended in the pre-sentence report.
15 Dec 2022
The appeal is dismissed because the end sentence was within the available range and not manifestly excessive; the Judge correctly followed the sentencing indication and applied appropriate discounts; further discount or home detention was not warranted given the appellant's denial of responsibility and the need for deterrence and denunciation; removal from the sex offenders' register is not available.
3 Feb 2021
Starting point of three years' imprisonment was appropriate for premeditated targeted arson that placed the victim at real risk; reduced culpability of approximately 15% for diagnosed borderline personality disorder and alcohol dependence and 25% for a guilty plea produced an effective custodial term which the Court converted to five months' home detention under s 80A given rehabilitation needs, compliance on EM bail, and a suitable supportive address, with mandated programmes and extended special conditions to 31 December 2021.
16 Oct 2019
The Court recalculated an appropriate starting point (27 months) for the indecent assault given the unique aggravating features, applied justified uplifts for other offending and prior convictions, then applied mitigations (20%) and guilty plea discount (25%) resulting in a final sentence of about 24.6 months; that outcome is within the permissible range and the appeal is dismissed as not manifestly excessive.
31 Jan 2019
Because Mr Smith is serving valid sentences pursuant to warrants, his detention is lawful; denial or delay of rehabilitative programmes and the effect on parole prospects do not make detention unlawful and must be addressed by other remedies; habeas corpus therefore declined.
16 Nov 2018
Leave granted to amend and pursue a focused judicial review claim that challenges the lawfulness of the Department's decisions concerning provision and withdrawal from rehabilitation programmes under Corrections Act s52; all other causes of action pleaded (defamation, Privacy Act, NZBORA standalone damages claims, battery, strip search, negligence, alleged torture and separate proceedings seeking large damages) disclosed no reasonably arguable case and were struck out, with costs reserved.
13 Jul 2018
The sentencing Judge erred by failing to apply the full 25% guilty plea discount available for the December 2016 offences; the appeal is allowed to the extent that the December 2016 sentence is substituted to two years and one month imprisonment, to be served cumulatively with the unchanged four months for the January 2018 offences, producing an end sentence of two years and five months imprisonment.
24 Jun 2016
The Court set aside the 17 September 2015 decision because the Board acted unreasonably by effectively requiring completion of a DTU before supporting parole without taking into account relevant considerations, specifically the Probation Service's assessment that DTU was unnecessary and the evidence that the applicant had no history of drug use; the error rendered the decision unreasonable and required reconsideration.
30 Sept 2010
The Tribunal did not breach natural justice in declining to defer determination because the appellant was only wait-listed with no clear date for programme attendance, deferral would have been indefinite and speculative, the Tribunal was required to decide on the evidence before it, and subsequent post-decision material cannot establish an error of law on an appeal where no special reasons under r 20.16 justify admitting new evidence.