New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 27 cultural report

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 2023

O’BRIEN v R [2023] NZHC 134

Citation

[2023] NZHC 134
Court

High Court

The District Court erred by adopting too high a starting point; the appellant's role was properly characterised as a lesser role producing a reduced starting point (4.5 years). The s 27 cultural report was admissible in the interests of justice and warranted a further 12% discount. Applying a total discount of 62% to the adjusted starting point produced an end sentence of 1 year 8.5 months, and the appropriate disposal is ten months home detention with specified conditions; accordingly the appeal is allowed.
25 Mar 2022

PAGULAYAN v R [2022] NZCA 90

Citation

[2022] NZCA 90
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the District Court correctly set the starting point by reference to R v AM and correctly applied a 20% discount combining prior good character and limited weight from the s27 report; the defendant's prolonged, multi‑victim offending and lack of remorse substantially limited mitigating credit so the end sentence of eight years seven months was within permissible range and not manifestly excessive.
30 Jul 2021

WILLIAMS v R [2021] NZHC 1960

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1960
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the sentencing Judge correctly placed the offending at the low end of Nuku band three, adopted a three years six months starting point with an uplift for the second charge, and properly applied discounts totalling 35% (20% guilty plea and 15% personal/rehabilitative) resulting in an effective sentence of two years four months; the s 27 cultural report produced on appeal did not demonstrate an error in sentencing or that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
5 Mar 2021

BRAZENDALE v R [2021] NZHC 397

Citation

[2021] NZHC 397
Court

High Court

The Court held the sentencing judge's assessment—a global starting point of 36 months, a 35% overall discount (20% for guilty pleas and approximately 15% for s 27 matters and remorse), and a six month uplift for prior convictions—fell within the available sentencing range; the s 27 material did not justify a larger discount and any remorse was undermined by minimisation, and while three months uplift for priors was clearly justifiable the additional uplift attributable to the repeated drink driving was also supportable; therefore the sentence of two years five months was not manifestly excess…
14 Aug 2020

R v NGATAI [2020] NZHC 2106

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2106
Court

High Court

Life imprisonment without parole would be manifestly unjust given the offender's youth, lack of prolonged violence or weapon use, stage two status and guilty plea; s104(1)(e) 17-year MPI not met because murder did not attain the required high level of brutality despite aggravating post-offence conduct; balancing aggravating factors (post-offence conduct, prior convictions, harm to whānau) and mitigating factors (age, rehabilitation prospects, s27 cultural factors) a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years was appropriate; concurrent terms imposed for related offences.
24 Mar 2020

TUI v POLICE [2020] NZHC 635

Citation

[2020] NZHC 635
Court

High Court

The end sentence of 10 months' home detention (as imposed by Judge Davis) was not manifestly excessive; the s 27 report would not have produced mitigation sufficient to make the sentence excessive; Judge Harvey rightly resentenced to 15 months' imprisonment (allowing credit for home detention served) after the appellant absconded.

New Zealand Case Law

O’BRIEN v R [2023] NZHC 134

PAGULAYAN v R [2022] NZCA 90

WILLIAMS v R [2021] NZHC 1960

BRAZENDALE v R [2021] NZHC 397

R v NGATAI [2020] NZHC 2106

TUI v POLICE [2020] NZHC 635