New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remorse and reparation

Legal area

Court

19 Nov 2019

MILLAR v R [2019] NZCA 570

Citation

[2019] NZCA 570
Court

Court of Appeal

Appeal allowed. The Court held the sentencing judge erred in the quantum of mitigation. Youth warranted a 15% discount, remorse and reparation 10%, and other factors 8% (total 26 months); a genuine guilty plea attracted a 25% discount. Applying those discounts to the appropriate starting point produced a substituted sentence of 39 months (three years three months) for manslaughter; the concurrent two-year sentence for reckless driving causing injury remains.
9 Jul 2018

POLLARD v R [2018] NZCA 244

Citation

[2018] NZCA 244
Court

Court of Appeal

Given the facts (deliberate acceleration through a crowd at night, CCTV/audio evidence, and catastrophic permanent injury), a three-year starting point for dangerous driving causing injury was within range; uplifts for failing to stop and prior convictions should be limited to a combined six months; an exceptional eight-month reduction for remorse and a 20% reduction for guilty pleas produced a substituted sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment, with the concurrent failing-to-stop sentence reduced to six months concurrent.
19 Dec 2017

BULLEN v R [2017] NZCA 615

Citation

[2017] NZCA 615
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the District Court's starting point of five years and nine months was too high given the comparative authorities and the factual matrix; substituted starting point of four and a half years, allowed a four month reduction for genuine remorse and reparation in respect of Bullen, granted extension of time for Jackson, and allowed further evidence for Bullen, resulting in substituted sentences of four years two months for Bullen and four years three months for Jackson.
13 Oct 2016

GOODALL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2440

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2440
Court

High Court

The High Court concluded the District Court's starting point of two years' imprisonment (resulting in a total sentence of two years and two months) was not manifestly excessive given the deliberate, premeditated dishonesty, substantial combined loss ($32,000), breaches of trust and the appellant's significant history of dishonesty; further, the sentencing judge properly declined additional credit for remorse or likely reparation because remorse was not demonstrated as genuine and reparation was unlikely to be made.

New Zealand Case Law

MILLAR v R [2019] NZCA 570

POLLARD v R [2018] NZCA 244

BULLEN v R [2017] NZCA 615

GOODALL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2440