IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN. S N McKenzie for Crown
|
|
- Cleopatra Hoover
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN v Hearing: 15 December 2014 R Appearances: H T Young for Appellant S N McKenzie for Crown Judgment: 17 December 2014 JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J Introduction [1] In August 2014, Ms Teleisha McLaren pleaded guilty to one count of each of the following: (a) injuring with intent to injure; 1 (b) kidnapping; 2 (c) threatening to do grievous bodily harm; 3 and (d) driving while forbidden Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2). Crimes Act 1961, s 209. Crimes Act 1961, s 306(1)(a). Land Transport Act 1998, s 52(1)(c). MCLAREN v R [2014] NZHC 3274 [17 December 2014]
2 [2] On 13 November 2014, Judge Crosbie sentenced her to two years and four months imprisonment on the lead charge of injuring with intent to injure. On each of the kidnapping and threatening to do grievous bodily harm charges, the Judge sentenced her to six months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the sentence on the alleged charge. On the driving charge she was convicted, discharged, and disqualified from driving for six months. [3] Ms McLaren now appeals against that sentence. She submits that there were errors in the determination of the sentence and, as a result, it was manifestly excessive. Background [4] The relevant background all relates to events occurring in July 2014, when Ms McLaren was 18 years old. [5] On 9 July 2014, Ms McLaren was stopped in Invercargill and found to be driving while forbidden. [6] On 10 July 2014, Ms McLaren s mother refused to return her two year old daughter until Ms McLaren cleaned up her house. Ms McLaren went to the police station and complained to police that her child was being kidnapped. She said to a police staff member if she is going to kidnap my daughter, I will slit her throat. [7] At around pm on 20 July 2014, Ms McLaren and her co-offender, Ms Crystal Murray, were at a house in Invercargill. They had been drinking for around five hours. This is where the events leading to the injuring with intent to injure took place. [8] The victim of this offending is Ms Murray s flatmate. Dr Jim Roache, a psychologist, reports that she is intellectually disabled. While she presents as a likeable and friendly young woman with a relatively normal vocabulary, she has significantly restricted cognitive abilities.
3 [9] Ms McLaren and Ms Murray went to the bedroom to discuss allegations that the victim had been making things up and talking about Ms Murray in a pejorative way behind her back. Upon emerging from the bedroom, they attacked the victim. [10] They took the victim s cellphone so she could not call the police. They also took her glasses so she could not see properly. Over the course of the attack, which lasted between 30 and 45 minutes, they prevented her from leaving on at least four separate occasions. [11] The assault began by both Ms McLaren and Ms Murray slapping the victim around the head and face and yelling at her. She stood up. They threw her to the ground. They then slapped and punched the victim around the head while she lay on the floor in a foetal position. Again, they prevented an attempted escape by throwing her to the ground. They kicked the victim all over her body and delivered around four kicks to the head. They punched and slapped her head while she was on the ground. [12] The victim was then thrown on the couch. Ms Murray picked up a steak knife and showed it to the victim. Ms McLaren told her to put the knife down. Ms Murray threw several glasses of water on the victim who was crying and begging to leave the address. Two of Ms McLaren s associates arrived and told her to let the victim go. The victim escaped out the back door. Ms Murray chased the victim down, threw her to the ground, and slammed her head into a fence repeatedly. Ms McLaren followed her and gave the victim her cellphone back. [13] The victim was left bleeding profusely. She had numerous bruises to her head and pain in her back. District Court decision [14] The Judge took injuring with intent to injure as the lead charge, noting that while it did not carry the greatest maximum penalty, it was the most serious offence
4 having regard to the circumstances. The Judge found that there were seven Taueki, aggravating factors present which he identified as: 5 (a) extreme violence; (b) serious injury; (c) use of weapons; (d) attacks to the head; (e) multiple attackers; (f) a vulnerable victim; (g) what occurred compromised the integrity of the victim s home. [15] Applying the approach in R v Nuku, where the Taueki factors are applied to less serious offending, the Judge placed the offending in band three, attracting a starting point of between two and five years imprisonment. 6 The Judge took a starting point of three years and three months imprisonment. [16] The Judge then imposed an uplift of three months imprisonment for the kidnapping charge, a second uplift of three months for the threatening charge, and a third uplift of three months for offending while on bail. That brought the starting sentence to four years imprisonment. [17] From that the Judge allowed a 15 per cent discount for youth, remorse and having no previous convictions. The Judge also allowed the full 25 per cent discount for an early guilty plea. Arithmetically that should have brought the sentence down to three years and five months, and then two years and six months (rounding down). However, the Judge appears to have erred in failing to apply the guilty plea discount 5 6 R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372, (2005) 21 CRNZ 769 (CA). Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584, [2013] 2 NZLR 39.
5 after all other discounts have been applied, and arrived at an end sentence of two years and four months. 7 Jurisdiction [18] This Court, as first appeal Court, 8 will only disturb the sentence appealed from if the appellant can establish that there was an error in the sentence and that a different sentence should be imposed. 9 [19] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the sentence appeal regime in the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 was not intended to signify departure from the position under the predecessor regimes in s 385(3) of the Crimes Act 1961, and s 121(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act As Kós J put it recently, the manifestly excessive criterion for appeal has not been eradicated. 11 Grounds of appeal [20] Ms McLaren relies on the following grounds of appeal: (a) the Judge misstated the facts; (b) the starting point adopted on the alleged charge was too high; (c) the three uplifts imposed were too high; and (d) the Judge had no power to disqualify Ms McLaren from driving. Ground one misstatement of facts [21] Mr Young, for Ms McLaren, points out that the Judge proceeded on the basis of an outdated summary of facts. It appears that the Judge s sentencing notes were based on a summary of facts that was handed up when Ms Murray pleaded guilty. By the time Ms McLaren pleaded guilty seven days later, agreed amendments had As required by Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 at [73]. Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 247. Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250. Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482. Smith v R [2014] NZHC 3033 at footnote 13.
6 been made to the summary in relation to her actions. The Crown accepts that this appears to have been what happened. [22] Mr Young points to five changes made to the summary of facts that he submits could have had an impact on the outcome. [23] First, Ms McLaren was originally said to have punched the victim in the head with closed fists. That was amended to slapping and punching the victim in the head. [24] Second, Ms McLaren was said to have begun kicking and kneeing the victim in the back and head numerous times. This first episode of kicking and kneeing was removed from the amended summary. [25] Third, Ms McLaren was said to have kicked and kneed [the victim] all over the body and to the head numerous times using both feet in the kicking phase of the attack. That was amended to kicked [the victim] all over the body and to the head around four times. In the amended summary it was also noted that Ms McLaren had bare feet, and that her part in the phase of the assault following the kicks to the head was to kick the victim in the legs at least twice and punch the victim in the head. [26] Fourth, in the amended summary, it was noted that after Ms Murray picked up the steak knife, Ms McLaren told Murray to put the knife down. [27] Fifth, in the original summary of facts, after describing the knife incident, it was said that over the course of the following 30 to 45 minutes the victim has repeatedly pleaded with the defendants to let her go. In the amended summary that was changed to this assault and unlawful detention lasted between minutes. [28] I accept that the fact the Judge proceeded on the wrong version of the statement of facts, was an error in the sentencing process. I also do not consider it appropriate to review each charge and decide whether or not it, individually, was
7 material to the sentencing process, because on that approach, I might miss the totality of effects that the amended summary of facts might have had on the Judge s thinking when embarking on the sentencing process. Given there were five differences, I think the safer course of action is to look at the totality of the facts and decide where the starting point should be independently of the Judge, then compare that with the starting point adopted by the Judge and make a decision as to whether the starting point he adopted was inappropriate. [29] That decision leads directly on to the second ground of appeal which is that the starting point adopted on the lead charge was too high. Ground two the starting point adopted on the lead charge was too high [30] Mr Young says that only three Taueki aggravating factors were present, so the offending falls at the top end of band two of Nuku and warrants a starting point of around two and a half years imprisonment. [31] As a further point, Mr Young submits that the Judge erred in assessing Ms McLaren s role as only slightly less culpable than Ms Murrays. He submits that she counselled Ms Murray to put the knife down and effectively withdrew from the joint enterprise at that point. She took no part in the further incident where Ms Murray repeatedly slammed the victim s head into the fence. In fact, she followed the victim and gave her back her cellphone. [32] I do not accept that Ms McLaren withdrew from the attack after the knife incident. She pleaded guilty as a joint principle party to the whole of the injuring offending. 12 The question is whether she is less culpable than Ms Murray, having not personally inflicted the blows against the fence or used the knife. I consider that she is less culpable (as did the District Court Judge) and I consider the appropriate starting point in that light. [33] Upon reconsideration using the updated summary of facts, I find the following aggravating factors were present: 12 Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1)(a).
8 (a) Extreme violence. The attack was prolonged and that is the case whether it lasted 30 to 45 minutes or an hour. (b) Premeditation. There was a mild degree of premeditation involved. The co-offenders withdrew to the bedroom, conferred, then attacked in a co-ordinated fashion. (c) Serious injury. I do not consider that the injuries suffered by the victim were very serious in the sense used in Taueki. Her injuries, while extensive, were of moderate severity involving some bleeding, bruising and pain in her back. (d) Use of weapons. Ms Murray did use a knife in this joint enterprise in the sense that she brandished it at the victim. But it was not used to harm the victim and Ms McLaren counselled her to put it down. I do not think this could be said to be an aggravating feature of Ms McLaren s conduct. (e) Attacking the head. This is a serious aggravating factor. A large number of punches were landed on the victim s head and Ms McLaren contributed some of the four kicks to the victim s head. (f) Multiple attackers. This is an aggravating factor because there were, of course, two attackers. (g) Vulnerable victim. This is a serious aggravating factor. The victim was particularly vulnerable as an intellectually disabled person. In fact, Dr Roache described her as highly vulnerable. Aspects of the attack were particularly cruel, such as taking the victim s glasses and throwing water on her. [34] I also note at this point that another misunderstanding of the Judge was that he assumed the assault took place in the victim s home, and that this was an aggravating feature. In fact, as the Crown accepts, the assault took place in
9 Ms McLaren s home at Mary Street in Invercargill, not the victim s home, and it was not a further aggravating feature. [35] From the above, I have considered that there are three serious aggravating features, another two present to a moderate degree and another present to a mild degree. A starting point in band two of up to three years imprisonment will be appropriate where there are three or fewer aggravating factors present, where there are three or more aggravating factors and the combination of those features is particularly serious, the offending falls within band three. Particularly relevant is this passage from the Court of Appeal s decision in Nuku v R: 13 The presence of a high level of or prolonged violence is an aggravating factor of such gravity that it will generally require a starting point within band three, even if there are few other aggravating features. [36] The fact that there are three aggravating factors present to a serious degree means that a starting point near the top of band two is the minimum that could be taken. It is arguable whether, in combination, they were particularly serious, but given that prolonged violence will generally require a band three starting point, even when there are few other aggravating features (here there are several), a starting point at the bottom of band three (of three years) was unavoidable. [37] Mr Young points to a comparable case relied on by the Judge at sentencing: R v Singh-Kang. 14 In that case, the defendant was one of three who kidnapped and assaulted a friend who had allegedly unlawfully sold the defendant s car. The victim was bundled into a car, punched and kicked, driven to a picnic area, punched and kicked again and stomped on. The defendant then displayed a running chainsaw close to the victim s neck and said do you think I m all shit?. The whole attack took about one hour. [38] Asher J took a starting point of two years and three months on the injuring with intent to injure, an uplift of nine months on the kidnapping charge, and a further uplift of three months for the chainsaw incident (which a co-offender who was Nuku v R, above n 6, at [38](c). R v Singh-Kang [2014] NZHC 126.
10 otherwise sentenced for the same offending had not been involved in). 15 submits that Ms McLaren was less culpable than either offender in Singh-Kang. Mr Young [39] Two responses can be made to that point. First, Asher J acknowledged that he had been very lenient in his sentencing indication in placing the injuring offending in band two, but was nevertheless bound by it: 16 This was a very nasty and prolonged assault. I have to say as I have come back to the sentencing process I consider that my placing of your offending in band two was, if anything, generous to you. There certainly was a case for seeing your offending as band three of offending in terms of Nuku v R. [40] Second, the offending in Singh-Kang was broadly comparable to this case. Both were similarly prolonged (given I do not consider the difference between 45 minutes and about an hour is material), involved similar kicking and punching and attacks to the head, and involved a degree of premeditation. In both cases, one offender brandished a weapon, but this case might, however, be seen to be more serious given that the victim was extremely vulnerable. [41] In my view, a minimum starting point of three years was required. The Judge cannot be said to have erred in imposing the starting point of three years and three months imprisonment. It was clearly within range and I see no reason to begin with a different starting point. [42] Mr Young also submits that the starting point adopted gave rise to an unfair disparity between the co-offenders. 17 I do not accept that is the case. While Ms McLaren did show a change of heart towards the end of the offending episode, it appears her more moderate behaviour manifested itself once other associates arrived at the flat. It was one of them who removed the knife from Ms Murray, and it was them who told the defendants to let the victim go. While Ms McLaren s attitude towards the victim did improve at this stage, I am satisfied that the three month differential adequately reflects this At [21]. At [16]. Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(e).
11 Ground three the three uplifts imposed were too high Uplift for kidnapping offending [43] The Judge imposed a three month uplift to recognise the totality of the offending when the kidnapping charge was included. In light of Singh-Kang, a combined sentence of three years and six months on the injuring and kidnapping charges appears high, as that sentence is six months higher than the total imposed for those offences on the offender in Singh-Kang, before taking into account additional culpability for the chainsaw incident. [44] In the present circumstances, I consider that the culpability of the kidnapping charge is adequately encompassed in the prolonged attack aggravating feature that uplifts the offending into band three of Nuku. I would impose no uplift. Uplift for threatening to kill and offending while on bail [45] Some uplift needs to be made for the threat made to kill Ms McLaren s mother. While I accept Mr Young s submission that it was made in an emotional context, where Ms McLaren s mother was resisting returning Ms McLaren s child to her because of the state of her home, I balance that by the fact that it was clearly a serious threat because it was made before a police officer in a police station. [46] In addition, offending on bail is an aggravating factor. 18 However, Ms McLaren has not offended on bail before. [47] I consider that a total uplift of six months imprisonment (between 15 and 20 per cent of the starting point) for these matters was excessive. I would impose two months for the threat and one month for offending while on bail. Ground 4 the Judge had no power to disqualify Ms McLaren from driving [48] It is clear that the Judge had no power to disqualify Ms McLaren from driving. The sentence available is a fine only. The Crown accepts that this is the case. In this respect the appeal must be allowed. 18 Sentencing Act 2002, s 9(1)(c).
12 Conclusion [49] Drawing all the threads together, I have upheld the starting point of three years and three months on the lead charge, with a total uplift of three months, bringing the start sentence to three years and six months. From that, a discount of 15 per cent for youth, remorse and no previous convictions takes the sentence to one of just under three years. A further discount of 25 per cent for an early guilty plea takes the end sentence to two years and three months imprisonment. [50] That is just one month less than the end sentence actually imposed by the Judge. The focus on appeal is on the end sentence imposed, not how it is constructed. To modify the sentence on appeal would be tinkering and I decline to do so. 19 [51] I therefore allow the appeal in one respect only: Ms McLaren s sentence of disqualification from driving for six months should be quashed. Solicitors: H T Young, Invercargill Crown Law, Invercargill 19 See Smith v R, n 11, at [27]: An adjustment of one or two months to [the appellant s] sentence would be mere tinkering at [27].
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC SHAUN JOHN BOLTON Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2016-409-000046 [2016] NZHC 1297 BETWEEN AND SHAUN JOHN BOLTON Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 14 June 2016 Appearances: D J
More informationKARL MURRAY BROWN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Ellen France, MacKenzie and Mallon JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA686/2013 [2014] NZCA 93 BETWEEN AND KARL MURRAY BROWN Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 18 February 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Ellen France, MacKenzie
More informationAppellant. JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA831/2013 [2014] NZCA 119 BETWEEN AND THE QUEEN Appellant JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent Hearing: 12 March 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild, Goddard and Clifford
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE CRI [2018] NZHC 770. Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE CRI-2018-483-1 [2018] NZHC 770 BETWEEN AND RUBEN HAWEA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 17 April 2018
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC 254 THE QUEEN STEAD NUKU NIGEL JOHN LAKE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2015-044-002617 [2016] NZHC 254 THE QUEEN v STEAD NUKU NIGEL JOHN LAKE Hearing: 24 February 2016 Appearances: S McColgan for the Crown R M Mansfield
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI 2014-004-000413 [2014] NZHC 3294 BETWEEN AND CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 16 December 2014 Appearances:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 1018 THE QUEEN REBEL WAITOHI. K A Stoikoff for Prisoner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2013-044-1109 [2014] NZHC 1018 THE QUEEN v Hearing: 15 May 2014 REBEL WAITOHI Appearances: T M Cooper for Crown K A Stoikoff for Prisoner Sentence:
More informationTHE QUEEN TOKO MARCUS PEARSON. Guilty SENTENCE OF MACKENZIE J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2004-070-4342 THE QUEEN 0 V TOKO MARCUS PEARSON Charges: Pleas: Counsel: Sentence: I. Burglary 2. Injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED.
EDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU CRI-2016-092-011259 [2017] NZDC 10782 THE QUEEN v ISAIAH MICHAEL PEKA Hearing: 24 May 2017
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC MITCHELL DUDGEON MCLEISH Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2015-409-000048 [2015] NZHC 1610 BETWEEN AND MITCHELL DUDGEON MCLEISH Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 9 July 2015 Appearances:
More informationAssault Definitive Guideline
Assault Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents For reference Assault only. Definitive Guideline 1 Applicability of guideline 2 Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC 81. Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent (ORAL) JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2014-463-95 [2015] NZHC 81 BETWEEN AND PETER BILL GRAY Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 4 February 2015 Counsel: M McGhie for appellant
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI [2017] NZHC 2279 THE QUEEN PATRICK DIXON
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI-2016-092-012355 [2017] NZHC 2279 THE QUEEN v PATRICK DIXON Hearing: 20 September 2017 Counsel: L P
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC BENJAMIN DUNCAN ROSS Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2014-485-63 [2014] NZHC 2388 BETWEEN AND BENJAMIN DUNCAN ROSS Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 23 September 2014 Appearances: C
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Randerson, Heath and Asher JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Heath J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA281/2013 [2013] NZCA 623 BETWEEN AND IORITANA TUAU Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 18 November 2013 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Randerson, Heath and Asher
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TAURANGA CRI [2016] NZDC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TAURANGA CRI-2015-070-003935 [2016] NZDC 15620 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v ROYCE THOMAS MATOE Defendant Hearing: 16 August 2016 Appearances:
More informationLEVI HOHEPA REUBEN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Appellant. Randerson, Clifford and Whata JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA454/2016 [2017] NZCA 138 BETWEEN AND LEVI HOHEPA REUBEN Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent CA473/2016 BETWEEN AND AKUHATUA TIHI Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing:
More informationJOEL DYLAN BOWLIN Applicant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Harrison, Fogarty and Dobson JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
23 April 2015 at 8 am - DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA686/2014 [2015] NZCA 137 BETWEEN AND JOEL DYLAN BOWLIN Applicant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 5 March 2015 Court: Counsel: Judgment:
More informationAggravating factors APPENDIX 2. Summary
APPENDIX 2 Aggravating factors Summary This guideline deals with those factors that may not be specifically identified in the applicable offencebased guideline, but may still be relevant to sentence depending
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC PAUL ANDREW HAMPTON Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2014-463-000062 [2014] NZHC 2423 PAUL ANDREW HAMPTON Appellant v Hearing: 1 October 2014 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Appearances: Rebecca Plunket
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2012] NZHC TIMOTHY KYLE GARNHAM Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2012-485-000098 [2012] NZHC 3447 BETWEEN AND TIMOTHY KYLE GARNHAM Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 18 December 2012 Counsel: D A
More informationAppellant. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA129/2016 [2016] NZCA 133 BETWEEN AND MICHAEL MARINO Appellant THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent Hearing: 4 April 2016 Court: Counsel:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC 2357 THE QUEEN FABIAN JESSIE MIKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-009-001924 [2013] NZHC 2357 THE QUEEN v Hearing: 10 September 2013 FABIAN JESSIE MIKA Appearances: P J Shamy and MAJ Elliott for Crown J
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH CRI [2018] NZDC 1234 THE QUEEN MICKAL JAMES HAMMOND. S Lance for the Defendant
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH CRI-2016-054-000949 [2018] NZDC 1234 THE QUEEN v MICKAL JAMES HAMMOND Hearing: 25 January 2018 Appearances: J Harvey for the Crown S Lance for the Defendant Judgment:
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI [2017] NZDC THE QUEEN JAE MOOK MOON HYUNG BOK LEE
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI-2016-004-000272 [2017] NZDC 17014 THE QUEEN v JAE MOOK MOON HYUNG BOK LEE Hearing: 2 August 2017 Appearances: F Culliney for the Crown P Hamlin for the Defendant Moon
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TOKOROA CRI [2017] NZDC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor. BANABA KAITAI Defendant
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TOKOROA CRI-2016-063-004445 [2017] NZDC 6093 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v BANABA KAITAI Defendant Hearing: 22 March 2017 Appearances:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 2705 THE QUEEN SHANE PIERRE HARRISON DILLIN PAKAI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2013-096-2316 [2014] NZHC 2705 THE QUEEN v Hearing: 31 October 2014 SHANE PIERRE HARRISON DILLIN PAKAI Counsel: G J Burston and J A Eng for the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Sambai [03] QCA 42 PARTIES: R v SAMBAI, Lucas Londe (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 352 of 02 DC No of 02 DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
More informationBladed Articles and Offensive Weapons
Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Definitive Guideline Contents Applicability of guideline 2 Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons 3 Possession Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Jones [2008] QCA 181 PARTIES: R v JONES, Matthew Kenneth (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 73 of 2008 DC No 58 of 2008 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationTHE QUEEN. D M Wilson QC for Crown C M Clews for Prisoner SENTENCE OF RANDERSON J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY T.013648 THE QUEEN V BOWEN PUTOA NEHA MANIHERA Date: 3 February 2003 Counsel: Sentence: D M Wilson QC for Crown C M Clews for Prisoner Four years imprisonment
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC 2107 THE QUEEN STEVEN BETHAM LEVI HOHEPA REUBEN AKUHATUA TIHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2015-009-003010 [2016] NZHC 2107 THE QUEEN v STEVEN BETHAM LEVI HOHEPA REUBEN AKUHATUA TIHI Hearing: 2 September 2016 Counsel: D J Orchard for
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PAPAKURA CRI [2016] NZDC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor. CAMERON JASON PANTON Defendant
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PAPAKURA CRI-2016-055-000928 [2016] NZDC 25117 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v CAMERON JASON PANTON Defendant Hearing: 7 December 2016 Appearances:
More informationIntimidatory Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Intimidatory Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 4 Harassment (putting people in fear of violence) 5 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (section 4)
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI [2017] NZDC THE QUEEN TULUA DANIEL TANOAI (AKA) ARETA MARK TANOAI
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI-2017-004-004019 [2017] NZDC 20334 THE QUEEN v TULUA DANIEL TANOAI (AKA) ARETA MARK TANOAI Hearing: 8 September 2017 Appearances: A Linterman for the Crown M Pecotic
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal, which is against both conviction and sentence, is dismissed. REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA592/2012 [2013] NZCA 339 BETWEEN AND MARK HETERAKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 15 July 2013 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild, Heath and Keane JJ L L Heah
More informationTHE QUEEN JOHN MICHAEL COCKER. Counsel: K Stone for the Crown I M Antunovic for the Accused
NOT RECOMMENDED IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CRI-2004-085-1865 WELLINGTON REGISTRY THE QUEEN JOHN MICHAEL COCKER Counsel: K Stone for the Crown I M Antunovic for the Accused Sentencing: 15 October
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI THE QUEEN ROBERT JOHN BROWN SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI 2005-020-003954 THE QUEEN v ROBERT JOHN BROWN Hearing: 30 July 2008 Appearances: C R Walker for the Crown D H Quilliam for the Prisoner Judgment: 30
More informationDangerous Dog. Offences Definitive Guideline
Dangerous Dog DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Offences Definitive Guideline Revised - Contents Applicability of Guidelines 2 Dog dangerously out of control in any place where death is caused Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Strickland [2003] QCA 184 PARTIES: R v STRICKLAND, Wayne Robert (applicant) FILE NOS: CA No 25 of 2003 DC No 279 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationSexual Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 7 Rape and assault offences 9 Rape 9 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (section 1) Assault by penetration 13 Sexual
More informationAnnex C: Draft guideline
Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons Guideline Consultation 43 Annex C: Draft guideline POSSESSION Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons Possession Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place
More informationORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 140 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 140 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING
More informationDEFINITIVE GUIDELINE. Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline
DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline Contents Applicability of guideline 7 Rape and assault offences 9 Rape Sexual Offences Act 2003 (section 1) 9 Assault by penetration Sexual Offences
More informationS G C. Reduction in Sentence. for a Guilty Plea. Definitive Guideline. Sentencing Guidelines Council
S G C Sentencing Guidelines Council Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea Definitive Guideline Revised 2007 FOREWORD One of the first guidelines to be issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council related
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Condon [2010] QCA 117 PARTIES: R v CONDON, Christopher Gerard (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 253 of 2009 DC No 114 of 2009 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT ROTORUA CRI [2017] NZDC 3345
EDITORIAL NOTE: NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT ROTORUA CRI-2016-063-001647 [2017] NZDC 3345 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v MANU HENARE Defendant Hearing:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Byles v. Palmer [2003] QSC 295 PARTIES: FILE NO: 2309/03 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: MATTHEW BYLES (applicant) v. STEWART WILLIAM PALMER (respondent)
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH CRI [2016] NZDC 4076 THE QUEEN MICHAEL STONE KIRSTY MENNER JOSHUA CLARK CHRISTOPHER MCGOVERIN
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH CRI-2015-009-002980 [2016] NZDC 4076 THE QUEEN v MICHAEL STONE KIRSTY MENNER JOSHUA CLARK CHRISTOPHER MCGOVERIN Hearing: 9 March 2016 Appearances: S Burdes for the
More informationORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUAPTION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUAPTION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS
More informationAnnex C: Draft guidelines
Intimidatory Offences and Domestic abuse guidelines Consultation 53 Annex C: Draft guidelines Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse Applicability of the Guideline In accordance with section 120 of the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2015-485-17 [2015] NZHC 2235 BETWEEN AND DINH TU DO Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 23 June 2015 Counsel: A Shaw for Appellant
More informationSummary of Investigation SiRT File # Referral from RCMP - PEI December 4, 2017
Summary of Investigation SiRT File # 2017-036 Referral from RCMP - PEI December 4, 2017 John L. Scott Interim Director June 12, 2018 Background: On December 4, 2017, SiRT Interim Director, John Scott,
More informationS G C. Assault and other offences against the person. Definitive Guideline. Sentencing Guidelines Council
S G C Sentencing Guidelines Council Assault and other offences against the person Definitive Guideline FOREWORD In accordance with section 170(9) of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003, the Sentencing
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Crosbie v Lawrence [2002] QSC 217 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: S3439 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: STUART ALLEN CROSBIE (applicant) v SHAYNE ALLEN LAWRENCE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY TO30332 Q U E E N RICHARD GEOFFREY BULL SENTENCE OF LAURENSON J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY TO30332 Q U E E N v RICHARD GEOFFREY BULL Hearing: 1-4 March 2004 Appearances: Mr Crayton for the Crown Mr Pyke for the Prisoner Judgment: 6 April 2004
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI [2018] NZHC 3165 THE QUEEN VICTORIA LOUIS JULIAN SENTENCING NOTES OF MOORE J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI-2017-092-011344 [2018] NZHC 3165 THE QUEEN v VICTORIA LOUIS JULIAN Hearing: 4 December 2018 Appearances:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Kolb [2007] QCA 180 PARTIES: R v KOLB, Peter Desmond (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 29 of 2007 DC 2585 of 2006 DC 3002 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING
More informationGARRETT TIMOTHY BIELEFELD
[02] QCA 369 COURT OF APPEAL WILLIAMS JA JERRARD JA HELMAN J CA No 59 of 02 THE QUEEN v. GARRETT TIMOTHY BIELEFELD Applicant BRISBANE..DATE 9/09/02 JUDGMENT MR N V WESTON (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Harrison, Goddard and Andrews JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA761/2013 [2014] NZCA 375 BETWEEN AND BENJAMIN VAINU Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 29 July 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Goddard and Andrews
More informationCriminal Law Guidebook - Chapter 12: Sentencing and Punishment
The following is a suggested solution to the problem on page 313. It represents an answer of an above average standard. The ILAC approach to problem-solving as set out in the How to Answer Questions section
More informationR v DOBSON & NORRIS. Central Criminal Court. 4 January Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Treacy
R v DOBSON & NORRIS Central Criminal Court 4 January 2012 Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Treacy The Offence 1. The murder of Stephen Lawrence on the night of 22 nd April 1993 was a terrible and evil
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA198/2016 [2017] NZCA 404. GEORGE CHARLIE BAKER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Hearing: 31 July 2017
NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT IN OFFENDING OF 27 AUGUST 2009 REMAINS IN FORCE. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC Plaintiff. THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND First Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2016-404-000544 [2016] NZHC 2237 UNDER THE Judicature Amendment Act 1972, Section 4 BETWEEN AND KARL NUKU Plaintiff THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Puchala [03] QCA 5 PARTIES: R v PUCHALA, Paul (appellant) PUCHALA, Matthew (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 332 of 03 CA No 334 of 03 DC No 352 of 03 DIVISION: Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA135/03 THE QUEEN ROGER HOWARD MCEWEN
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA135/03 THE QUEEN v ROGER HOWARD MCEWEN Hearing: 19 June 2003 Coram: Glazebrook J Heath J Doogue J Appearances: D G Harvey for Appellant M F Laracy for Crown Judgment:
More informationProposal. Budget sensitive. In confidence. Office of the Minister of Justice. Chair. Cabinet Social Policy Committee REFORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW
Budget sensitive In confidence Office of the Minister of Justice Chair Cabinet Social Policy Committee REFORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW Paper Three: Prosecuting family violence Proposal 1. This paper is the
More informationRESPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON PUBLIC ORDER OFFENCES DRAFT SENTENCING GUIDELINE
1 RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON PUBLIC ORDER OFFENCES DRAFT SENTENCING GUIDELINE Introduction 1. The CBA represents the views and interests of practising members of the criminal Bar in England and Wales.
More informationDrug Offences Definitive Guideline
Drug Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents For reference Drug Offences only. Definitive Guideline 1 Applicability of guideline 2 Fraudulent evasion of a prohibition by bringing into
More information!!! IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT DUNEDIN CRI NEW ZEALAND POLICE Informant. EDWARD HAMILTON LIVINGSTONE Defendant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT DUNEDIN CRI-2013-012-002610 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Informant v EDWARD HAMILTON LIVINGSTONE Defendant Hearing: Appearances: Judgment: 15 November 2013 T R Hambleton for the Informant
More informationBreach Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Breach Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 2 Breach of a community order 3 Breach of a suspended sentence order 7 Breach of post-sentence supervision
More informationRobbery Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Robbery Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 2 Robbery street and less sophisticated commercial 3 Theft Act 1968 (section 8(1)) Robbery professionally planned commercial
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Mullen [2006] QCA 317 PARTIES: R V MULLEN, Todd Kenneth (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 175 of 2006 DC No 3220 of 2005 DC No 1341 of 2006 DC No 1512 of 2006 DC No
More informationROBERT JAMES CUMMINGS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. RYAN WARREN GEARY-SMART Appellant. JACOB CHRISTOPHER GEARY-SMART Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA131/2015 [2016] NZCA 509 BETWEEN AND ROBERT JAMES CUMMINGS Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent CA132/2015 BETWEEN AND RYAN WARREN GEARY-SMART Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI THE QUEEN
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL.
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS]. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU CRI [2017] NZDC 25779
EDITORIAL NOTE: CHANGES MADE TO THIS JUDGMENT APPEAR IN [SQUARE BRACKETS]. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU CRI-2015-004-017104 [2017] NZDC 25779 THE QUEEN v SHEN ZHANG ZHONG SHU HAN Hearing: 13 November
More informationTHE CONSTITUTION (SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR COURTS OF JUDICATURE) (PRACTICE) DIRECTIONS, 2013 ARRANGEMENT OF PARAGRAPHS
THE CONSTITUTION (SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR COURTS OF JUDICATURE) (PRACTICE) DIRECTIONS, 2013 Paragraph ARRANGEMENT OF PARAGRAPHS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Title. 2. Application. 3. Objectives of these Practice
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Her Majesty the Queen. against. Corey Blair Clarke
Citation: R v Clarke Date:20050216 2005 PCSCTD 10 Docket:S 1 GC 384 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Her Majesty the Queen against Corey Blair
More informationCrimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002 No 90
New South Wales Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 92 and other Acts 2 Schedules
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Roser [2004] QCA 318 PARTIES: R v ROSER, Matthew Scott (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 265 of 2004 DC No 1432 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED
More informationIntroduction to Criminal Law
Winter 2019 Introduction to Criminal Law Recognizing Offenses Shoplifting equals Larceny Criminal possession of stolen property. Punching someone might be Assault; or Harassment; or Menacing Recognizing
More informationSchool non attendance (Revised 2017)
School non attendance (Revised 2017) Education Act 1996, s.444(1) (parent fails to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil); s.444(1a) (Parent knowingly fails to secure regular attendance
More informationBreach Offences Guideline Consultation 61. Annex C: ANNEX C. Draft guidelines. Breach of a Community Order Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Schedule 8)
Breach Offences Guideline Consultation 61 Annex C: Draft guidelines Breach of a Community Order Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Schedule 8) 62 Breach Offences Guideline Consultation Breach of Community Order
More informationCitation: R. v. Long Date: PESCTD 87 Docket: S-1-GC-71 Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: R. v. Long Date: 20011030 2001 PESCTD 87 Docket: S-1-GC-71 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN -against- JAMES
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA142/07 [2007] NZCA 424 THE QUEEN v GEORGE DARREN
More informationR v Kuntal Patel Sentencing Remarks by Mr Justice Singh. 7 November [The defendant may remain seated for the time being.]
In the Crown Court at Southwark R v Kuntal Patel Sentencing Remarks by Mr Justice Singh 7 November 2014 [The defendant may remain seated for the time being.] Introduction 1. On 2 October 2014 you were
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v McVea [2004] QCA 380 PARTIES: R v McVEA, Peter Andrew (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 145 of 2004 SC No 337 of 2003 SC No 542 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING
More information[2001] QCA 54 COURT OF APPEAL. McMURDO P THOMAS JA WILSON J. No 238 of 2000 THE QUEEN. Applicant BRISBANE JUDGMENT
[2001] QCA 54 COURT OF APPEAL McMURDO P THOMAS JA WILSON J No 238 of 2000 THE QUEEN v S Applicant BRISBANE..DATE 21/02/2001 JUDGMENT 1 21022001 T3/FF14 M/T COA40/2001 THE PRESIDENT: Justice Wilson will
More informationAppellant. SHANE PIERRE HARRISON Respondent. Appellant. JUSTIN VANCE TURNER Respondent. Ellen France P, Randerson, Harrison, Stevens and Miller JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA691/2014 [2016] NZCA 381 BETWEEN AND THE QUEEN Appellant SHANE PIERRE HARRISON Respondent CA114/2015 BETWEEN AND THE QUEEN Appellant JUSTIN VANCE TURNER Respondent
More informationBETWEEN THE STATE RAMDEO RAMDEEN BHAGWANDEEN
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Criminal Number S 045 /06 BETWEEN THE STATE V RAMDEO RAMDEEN BHAGWANDEEN Before Boodoosingh J. Mr A. Stroude and Ms A. Mohammed for The State
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. CA 107/2017 APPEAL JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. CA 107/2017 In the matter between: NATASHA GOLIATH Appellant and THE MINISTER OF POLICE Respondent APPEAL JUDGMENT Bloem J
More informationThe Queen. - v - DYLAN JACKSON. Sentencing Remarks of the Hon. Mr. Justice Picken. 10 December 2015
In the Crown Court at Nottingham The Queen - v - DYLAN JACKSON Sentencing Remarks of the Hon. Mr. Justice Picken 10 December 2015 1. After a trial lasting some eleven days or so including jury deliberations,
More informationSection 17 Lesser Evils Defense 535. Chapter Ten. Offenses Against the Person. Article One. Causing Death
Section 17 Lesser Evils Defense 535 THE LAW Israeli Penal Law (1995) (5737-1977, as amended in 5754-1994) Section 298. Manslaughter Chapter Ten. Offenses Against the Person Article One. Causing Death If
More informationUnfit through drink or drugs (drive/ attempt to drive) (Revised 2017)
Unfit through drink or drugs (drive/ attempt to drive) (Revised 2017) Road Traffic Act 1988, s.4(1) Effective from: 24 April 2017 Triable only summarily: Maximum: Unlimited fine and/or 6 months Offence
More informationIt is ordered, adjudged, and decreed:-
H.C.T.T. Tr. Div. TRUST TERRITORY REPORTS Mar. 3, 1970 established Marshallese custom it is clear that this alleged will failed for lack of approval of the Iroij Lablab. Therefore, it is the opinion of
More informationCrimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 92
New South Wales Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 92 Summary of contents Part 1 Preliminary Part 2 Penalties that may be imposed Division 1 General Division 2 Alternatives to full-time detention
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EDWARD ANDREW BENDIK Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 815 MDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationFINAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT: BLADED ARTICLES AND OFFENSIVE WEAPONS OFFENCES
FINAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT: BLADED ARTICLES AND OFFENSIVE WEAPONS OFFENCES 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This document fulfils the Council s statutory duty to produce a resource assessment which considers the likely
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v MDB [2018] QCA 283 PARTIES: R v MDB (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 35 of 2018 DC No 265 of 2018 DC No 254 of 2018 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court
More information