New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remorse assessment

Legal area

Court

25 Oct 2023

PAPAROA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2978

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2978
Court

High Court

Although another judge might have given a marginally larger remorse discount, the appellant did not demonstrate the end sentence of two years four months imprisonment was manifestly excessive given the high culpability, aggravating factors (significant intoxication including alcohol and drugs, reckless high-speed driving, no licence, prior driving misconduct), the death and injuries caused, and limited remedial steps by the offender; appeal dismissed.
4 Aug 2023

KOHU v R [2023] NZCA 343

Citation

[2023] NZCA 343
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the sentencing Judge's exercise of discretion: a 15% discount for cultural factors was appropriate given the s 27 material and binding authority; no separate remorse discount was warranted because the appellant repeatedly denied the factual basis of his guilty pleas and the restorative justice engagement proceeded on an alternative narrative, so genuine remorse for the charged offending was not established; the resulting sentence was within the proper range and not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
19 Nov 2018

MAUAHARA v POLICE [2018] NZHC 3004

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3004
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge did not err: the 27 month sentence was available and not manifestly excessive given aggravating factors (repeated offending, offending on bail, failure to appear, history of non-compliance and limited insight) and the appellant's belated letters of apology did not constitute fresh evidence nor demonstrate genuine remorse that would justify a reduction.
10 Aug 2018

MARTEL & ORS v R [2018] NZCA 305

Citation

[2018] NZCA 305
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the sentencing Judge did not err in the starting points given the quantities and roles: Martel's starting point reflected his central and extensive role and larger quantities, Vincent's and Roux's starting points were within range given their senior roles and volumes. Vincent was entitled to a full 25% guilty plea discount because, on appeal evidence, she pleaded at the first reasonable opportunity having been denied timely access to trial counsel; Martel's 10% and Roux's 15% discounts were appropriate. MPIs of 50% for Vincent and Roux were justified given the seriousness and s…

New Zealand Case Law

PAPAROA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2978

KOHU v R [2023] NZCA 343

MAUAHARA v POLICE [2018] NZHC 3004

MARTEL & ORS v R [2018] NZCA 305