New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sentencing appeal

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2023

TOVI v POLICE [2023] NZHC 2822

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2822
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal because the District Court did not err in principle: given the appellant's prior serious drink-driving conviction, the circumstances of the offending, the lack of evidence of rehabilitation and the statutory framework under s57AA, a fine would not meet the purposes of sentencing (accountability, denunciation and deterrence), so the community work sentence and interlock disqualification were appropriate and not manifestly excessive.
16 Jun 2022

BARBER v R [2022] NZHC 1435

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1435
Court

High Court

District Judge erred by failing to assess remorse separately and by not taking into account the appellant's letter of apology; on appeal the presumption of imprisonment under s128B was displaced given real prospects of rehabilitation and mitigating factors, and the one year, ten months and two weeks prison sentence was quashed and replaced with 10 months home detention (allowing a 3% remorse discount and credit for time in custody).
21 Apr 2021

MCLAUGHLIN v ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 845

Citation

[2021] NZHC 845
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court's finding that the circumstances were not exceptional: a gate left open through ordinary carelessness (even by a third party fleeing police) does not render the risk of repetition remote, and the owner's lack of additional protective measures despite prior attacks supported destruction under s57.
22 Sept 2020

REGTIEN v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 2474

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2474
Court

High Court

Applying the two-step Hill test, the facts as found showed the dog entered another's property and attacked while not effectively controlled; those circumstances are not exceptional and therefore s 57(3) required destruction of the dog.
1 Sept 2020

EVANS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 2266

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2266
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the attack was unprovoked and sustained, the immediate circumstances were not exceptional under s57(3), prior good behaviour and proposed future precautions are irrelevant to the statutory test, and therefore mandatory destruction of the dog is required to remove the real risk of repeat attacks.
15 May 2020

MCKEE v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2020] NZHC 1002

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1002
Court

High Court

The High Court held consequential loss reparation must be calculated by reference to the victim's actual pre-injury earnings (37 hours per week) so the District Court's use of a 40-hour minimum wage basis was incorrect and reduced consequential reparation to $156,000; and the ACC lump-sum for permanent impairment compensates the injury itself and cannot be offset against reparation for consequential loss.
19 Dec 2019

L (CA719/2017) v R [2019] NZCA 675

Citation

[2019] NZCA 675
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for further and wider suppression orders was declined because the appellant's asserted safety risk was speculative and the statutory grounds in ss 200 or 205 were not established; standard statutory suppression of names and identifying features is sufficient, and interim suppression orders were lifted.
20 Jun 2019

ROBINSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1412

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1412
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the District Court's end sentence of nine months imprisonment was within an orthodox range: the effective twelve-month starting point (six months base plus six months uplift for repeated breaches) was justified by eight prior breaches and ongoing non-compliance, and the 25% guilty plea discount produced a nine-month sentence; any factual imprecision and any limited restorative justice credit would not render that sentence manifestly excessive.
16 May 2019

WITHERS v POLICE [2019] NZHC 1080

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1080
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the District Court judge did not err: a 160 hour community work sentence for third-time excess breath alcohol offending with a high breath alcohol level and careless driving facts was within range and not manifestly excessive; the judge permissibly treated the careless driving as an aggravating factual circumstance and reasonably rejected a fine despite the appellant's family circumstances.
24 Mar 2017

HE v R [2017] NZCA 77

Citation

[2017] NZCA 77
Court

Court of Appeal

Given the quantities of methamphetamine and ephedrine, the presence of firearms and large sums of cash, and the appellant's relevant prior convictions and offending while on parole, the 14 year starting point and the uplifts were within the available range; no impermissible double counting arose from recall because the sentence was made cumulative (which reduced the practical effect of the MPI); discounts were appropriate and overall the 12 year sentence with a seven year MPI was not manifestly excessive.