New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentence appeal

Legal area

Court

19 Oct 2023

COLEMAN v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2023] NZCA 494

Citation

[2023] NZCA 494
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time to file the notice was granted because delay was largely explained by counsel change, legal aid and COVID factors and there was no prejudice; however leave to bring second appeals against conviction was declined because although trial counsel's performance fell below standards, the Court was not satisfied there was a real risk of miscarriage of justice for the convictions it analysed (charges 1, 35, 36–41, 42) as the evidence supported essential elements; leave to bring a second appeal against sentence was declined on jurisdictional grounds because there had been no determin…
17 Oct 2023

LEE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2906

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2906
Court

High Court

The District Court erred by failing to apply the s 13 presumption in favour of a fine and by not making the requisite s 14 finding that the appellant lacked means to pay; the imposition of community work and intensive supervision was therefore wrong in principle and the substitution of community work for remitted fines was invalid because the statutory procedures in the Summary Proceedings Act were not followed; the correct sentence is a $600 fine and the remitted $5,000 fines are restored.
6 Jul 2023

TAIT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 1748

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1748
Court

High Court

The High Court concluded the District Court trial and verdicts were fair, the complainants' evidence supported convictions beyond reasonable doubt, there was no miscarriage of justice warranting overturning the convictions, the court record was properly amended to record the convictions, the nine-month supervision sentence was not wrong in principle but, pragmatically and because six months had already elapsed while the appeal was pending and given the appellant's health, the effective sentence is reduced to six months' supervision which has been served.
3 Apr 2023

MISA v POLICE [2023] NZHC 720

Citation

[2023] NZHC 720
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the District Court judge did not err in declining to exercise the s 94 discretion: prior disqualifications had demonstrable effect, a further period of disqualification was likely to deter and protect the public, s 94 is reserved for clear cases, and therefore it was not inappropriate to order disqualification and the s 94 jurisdiction did not arise.
29 Aug 2022

KUPEC v R [2022] NZCA 410

Citation

[2022] NZCA 410
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for recall is declined because the applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances or miscarriage of justice required to recall a final appellate judgment; the sentencing judge did not impose the MPI mechanistically, and any alleged failure by counsel to advance an MPI challenge does not constitute a sufficient basis for recall.
14 Apr 2022

M v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 796

Citation

[2022] NZHC 796
Court

High Court

The uplift of eight months for driving while disqualified was a material error because it exceeded the statutory maximum for that offence; correcting the uplift to one month reduced the end sentence to five months' imprisonment, and taking into account the appellant's time under restrictive bail conditions justified conversion to three months' community detention and 15 months' intensive supervision, therefore the appeal is allowed and the sentence substituted accordingly.
8 Feb 2022

RICHARD EARNEST HOOD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 120

Citation

[2022] NZHC 120
Court

High Court

The High Court held there was no error in the District Court Judge's exercise of discretion under s 85(1): the Judge considered and deliberately refused to backdate the six month disqualification, knowing the appellant was close to release, to ensure an independent denunciatory and deterrent penalty beyond imprisonment for unrelated offences; the appeal was dismissed.
7 Oct 2021

HART-DEHAR v R [2021] NZHC 2684

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2684
Court

High Court

Further evidence (psychological report and mother's affidavit) was admitted as credible and cogent to reconcile inconsistent reports; however the sentencing Judge did not err in principle and the final cumulative sentences (27 months for sexual offending cumulative on existing 75 month sentence, plus 6 months for perverting the course of justice) were not manifestly excessive; discount for upbringing was modest given limited corroboration and limited nexus to the sexual offending; threshold for permanent name suppression under s200(2) was not met as there was no persuasive evidence publicatio…
30 Apr 2021

MCMILLAN v R [2021] NZCA 146

Citation

[2021] NZCA 146
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court recalled and reissued its 6 September 2011 judgment because an omission regarding the possessing cannabis oil charge materially affected the record of sentence and, on the authorities concerning recall, the amendments required were too extensive for r 45B and recall was necessary to achieve justice.
5 Mar 2021

COLVIN v R [2021] NZHC 400

Citation

[2021] NZHC 400
Court

High Court

The District Court erred in imposing 12 months' intensive supervision because Judge Menzies did not identify or establish the s54C requirements (conditions needed for longer than 12 months or conditions unavailable under supervision); lacking jurisdiction to impose intensive supervision, the appropriate replacement is 12 months' supervision on the same conditions.