New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Risk of reoffending

Legal area

Court

26 Jun 2023

TAYLOR v MBIE [2023] NZHC 1586

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1586
Court

High Court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed because no seriously arguable question of law was established: the Tribunal correctly applied the sequential s 207(1) framework (risk of reoffending is primarily a second stage/public interest factor), the alleged factual findings about Canadian family support were not contradicted or unsupported by evidence, and the Tribunal was not obliged to await the NASC report before deciding under s 228; precedents Ye, Helu, Guo and Taafi were applied.
5 May 2023

R v G [2023] NZHC 1048

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1048
Court

High Court

Permanent name suppression was necessary because publication would be likely to cause extreme hardship to the defendant given his FASD, intellectual disability, high suggestibility and history of social alienation; that hardship would jeopardise rehabilitation and increase the real risk of reoffending and public harm, and the discretion to suppress should be exercised because open justice is satisfied by permitting publication of diagnoses and reasons for sentence.
1 Sept 2022

R v McWATTERS [2022] NZHC 2224

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2224
Court

High Court

Applying a two‑stage approach the judge fixed a starting point of three years and six months' imprisonment (accounting for premeditation, violence, detention of victims and harm), reduced six months for a support role, then applied a 15% discount for personal factors and a 15% discount for the guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of two years and five months' imprisonment; home detention was rejected as unsuitable due to address, antisocial associates and risk factors.
29 Mar 2022

TAMAKI v POLICE [2022] NZHC 593

Citation

[2022] NZHC 593
Court

High Court

Because the factual landscape underpinning the curfew condition changed (Covid-19 restrictions on large outdoor gatherings ended), the risk of the specific offending alleged was removed and the bail condition was no longer justified; accordingly the appeal to vary bail succeeds and the proposed holiday variation is permitted.
15 Dec 2020

R v BROWN [2020] NZHC 3320

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3320
Court

High Court

Preventive detention was imposed because the judge was satisfied the defendant poses a high and ongoing risk of committing further qualifying sexual offences given a clear pattern of serious historical offending against boys over many years, repeated penetrative offending against a 13 year old while subject to an extended supervision order, limited insight and minimisation, prior treatment failure, and the conclusion that a lengthy determinate sentence would not adequately protect the community; minimum period of imprisonment fixed at five years to meet community protection requirement.
11 Dec 2019

JESEN v R [2019] NZCA 581

Citation

[2019] NZCA 581
Court

Court of Appeal

Preventive detention was quashed because the Judge erred in imposing it in respect of charges where the appellant was under 18 for some offending and, on the merits, the Court concluded a finite determinate sentence was adequate to protect the community given a real prospect of engagement in rehabilitation, the availability of registration and ESO mechanisms and the ability to increase the MPI; the Court substituted an effective 17‑year imprisonment term with an MPI of 8.5 years.
12 Nov 2019

WALKER v R [2019] NZCA 549

Citation

[2019] NZCA 549
Court

Court of Appeal

Given the appellant's escalating sexual offending, high assessed risk of reoffending, lack of insight and prior noncompliance with parole, preventive detention was necessary and not manifestly excessive; advanced age did not outweigh the demonstrated risk and an extended supervision order was unlikely to provide adequate protection; extension of time to appeal granted due to minimal delay and the merits.
25 Oct 2019

R v WERETA [2019] NZHC 2734

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2734
Court

High Court

Preventive detention was necessary because the offender posed a high and enduring risk of serious violent reoffending given the extreme, gang-motivated prison attack, his extensive violent history and expert risk opinions; however a 14-year minimum would be manifestly unjust and counterproductive, so preventive detention was imposed with an eight-year minimum to protect the public while preserving incentive for rehabilitation.
24 Jul 2019

RENE MISCHELLE DE KWANT v R [2019] NZSC 79

Citation

[2019] NZSC 79
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the issues raised were primarily factual, the Court of Appeal properly applied Parahi and assessed risk of reoffending on the evidence, no miscarriage of justice was shown, and no question of general or public importance for the Supreme Court was established.
2 Jul 2019

R v BRADBURY [2019] NZHC 1528

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1528
Court

High Court

Given the defendant's sustained pattern of serious sexual offending against children, recent reoffending soon after release, ongoing denial and refusal of treatment, and high assessed risk of reoffending, preventive detention was necessary to protect the community; a finite sentence would not provide adequate protection so preventive detention with a five year minimum term was imposed.