New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reparation orders

Legal area

Court

26 Oct 2022

WOODWARD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 2774

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2774
Court

High Court

The High Court held the sentencing starting point and discounts were within range and not manifestly excessive but allowed the appeal in part because the District Court made a reparation order without adequate inquiry into the offender's means; the matter is remitted to the District Court under s 251(2)(c) Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to obtain a s 33 reparation report and to reconsider whether to impose reparation, its amount and any effect on sentence.
3 Oct 2022

BANNING v NZ POLICE [2022] NZHC 2523

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2523
Court

High Court

The reparation orders were quashed because both victims had already been paid by insurers and there was no evidence of the victims' consent required by s 38 to direct payment to insurers; insurers had exercised their rights (including subrogation) and entered into private settlements with the appellant, making overlaying court reparation orders unnecessary and risking double recovery.
6 May 2021

WILLIAMSON v POLICE [2021] NZHC 999

Citation

[2021] NZHC 999
Court

High Court

The 2018 reparation order was quashed because there was evidence the order caused undue hardship and the District Court lacked adequate financial information and should have obtained a reparation report; the 2018 order was substituted to limit recovery to the amount already paid on account to date; leave to appeal the 2015 reparation order was declined because that sentence had already been the subject of a High Court appeal which confirmed the reparation orders.
16 Feb 2021

BUTT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 179

Citation

[2021] NZHC 179
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal because, absent information about the offender's financial circumstances and without a reparation report or stated reasons for dispensing with one, the $11,000 reparation order payable at $20 per week (approx. 10.5 years) was manifestly excessive and likely to cause undue hardship under s 12(1); the proper course was to quash the reparation order and remit for reconsideration with a s 33 reparation report ordered.
17 Dec 2020

KLOOGH v SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE [2020] NZHC 3397

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3397
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court's sentence of eight years and ten months' imprisonment with an MPI of 60% as within range and not manifestly excessive given the scale, vulnerability of victims, breach of trust and sophistication of the Ponzi scheme, but quashed the $5,000,000 reparation order as inappropriate because there was no realistic prospect the offender could pay while serving the imposed MPI.
11 Dec 2020

TELEA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 3284

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3284
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that continued enforcement of the reparation order would now cause undue hardship; accordingly the reparation order was cancelled and the outstanding amount was remitted from the date the defendant ceased payments; no substituted sentence was imposed given the defendant's compliance, time already served, and practical difficulties after relocation.
27 May 2020

GILLARD v R [2020] NZHC 1140

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1140
Court

High Court

Starting point for this arson offending was reduced from that adopted in the District Court as the offending was materially less serious than comparator cases; the appellant was entitled to significant aggregate mitigation for mental health and personal background, remorse, restorative justice engagement and promised reparation, and distinct additional credit for proactive self-referral to Police, followed by full credit for an early guilty plea. Applying those discounts produced a substituted sentence of eleven months and one week imprisonment. The two weeks' imprisonment imposed in substitu…
5 May 2020

THOMSON v R [2020] NZHC 901

Citation

[2020] NZHC 901
Court

High Court

The appeal was allowed and the High Court substituted a reduced reparation order of $13,000 (comprising $8,000 emotional harm and $5,000 monetary loss) payable at $50 per week commencing 12 January 2022 because the original $71,800 order was unrealistic given the offender's financial circumstances and would have required repayment over an excessive period, such that the sentencing judge could not have had a realistic measure of confidence payments could be made and the order risked undue hardship.
19 Dec 2019

MURDOCH v POLICE [2019] NZHC 3446

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3446
Court

High Court

The Court held the District Court's starting point of eight months' imprisonment was appropriate given the defendant's conscious recklessness and the scale and sophistication of the fraud; the end sentence of six months' community detention was within range and not manifestly excessive, so the appeal against sentence was dismissed. However, the District Court erred in ordering full reparation without realistic prospect of payment and without adequate consideration of the offender's financial capacity; the reparation orders were quashed.
10 Dec 2019

HICKMAN v R [2019] NZHC 3251

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3251
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed: although the District Court did not state reasons for dispensing with a reparation report, the reparation of $1,212.66 was not excessive given the items taken and there was material before the Judge indicating the appellant could reasonably pay the amount, so the reparation order stands.