27 Oct 2023
The appeal was allowed because the original 15 months' imprisonment was replaced with a proportionate sentence of five months' home detention to be served at the address and under the conditions set out in the pre-sentence report; the order for reparation was left undisturbed.
18 Oct 2023
The s 27 report was admitted on appeal but the Court was not satisfied the report established the necessary causative contribution between background matters and the offending to justify any reduction in sentence; therefore the nine year sentence was upheld and the appeal against sentence dismissed.
5 Oct 2023
The cultural report did not materially alter the assessment of culpability or risk beyond the pre-sentence report; a modest one-month allowance was appropriate, reducing the end sentence from two years one month to two years imprisonment, and home detention remained inappropriate given the appellant's prolific dishonesty and recidivism.
9 Mar 2023
The appellant was properly found to have driven carelessly because, despite the unlawful and aggressive driving of another, she had repeated opportunities over an extended period to act prudently (reduce speed and allow passage) and failed to do so; the 'agony of the moment' did not justify inaction; refusal to discharge was appropriate because the consequences of conviction were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offence; the original 200 hours community work sentence was manifestly excessive given reduced culpability from another driver's primary unsafe conduct and was reduced to 1…
29 Jul 2022
The application for recall is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a very special reason or substantial injustice; the application merely re-argued matters resolved at trial or on appeal or raised points not pursued previously and would not have altered the outcome; the principle of finality therefore precludes recall.
25 Jun 2021
The Court found the original sentence of two years and three months was excessive and substituted a two year sentence, while imposing special release conditions requiring abstinence and assessment/treatment for alcohol and drugs, with those conditions expiring six months after the sentence expiry date.
17 Apr 2018
The High Court concluded the six month sentence was excessive and substituted a four month custodial sentence while retaining the original post-release conditions and adding a direction that the offender, on release, attend the Nelson Probation Centre for assessment and drug and alcohol counselling.
18 Jul 2017
Because the respondent accepted error and on assessment of submissions and time already served the appropriate final sentence was six months' imprisonment, the Court quashed the 10.5 month sentence and replaced it with six months' imprisonment with no release conditions.
29 May 2014
Leave to appeal was granted; the Court concluded the 11 month sentence was excessive, quashed it and substituted a sentence of six months imprisonment; the Court also imposed a post-release special condition requiring attendance at and completion of counselling or treatment as directed by the Probation Officer together with standard conditions under s 14(1) Parole Act 2002, to expire six months after the sentence expiry date.
16 Jul 2013
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and confined the approved ground to whether sentence reduction is an available remedy for a breach of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; the Court directed that counsel address whether sentence reduction is legally available and whether the fresh affidavit and leave to appeal factual findings should be permitted, leaving those issues to be decided at the substantive hearing.