Appellant. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent
|
|
- Molly Hodges
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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: Judgment: Miller, Cooper and Kós JJ D A Ewen and G K Edgeler for Appellant D J Perkins and T P Westaway for Respondent 12 April 2016 at am Reasons: 15 April 2016 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A B The appeal is dismissed. Counsel may file memoranda if any issue arises as to costs. REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Miller J) [1] The appellant challenges the Department of Corrections calculation of his entitlement to credit for time spent in custody before sentencing. He seeks habeas corpus because he says he ought to have been released on 12 January MICHAEL MARINO v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZCA 133 [15 April 2016]
2 Corrections maintains that his release date has yet to arrive, so that he is lawfully detained. [2] The appeal turns on the meaning of s 90(2) of the Parole Act Corrections succeeded in the High Court, Simon France J holding that nothing had changed relevantly since this Court s decision in Taylor v Superintendent of Auckland Prison, 1 which was decided under predecessor legislation, the Criminal Justice Act Narrative [3] The appellant was arrested for offences of family violence on 11 February 2015 and remanded in custody. On 26 February and 6 March 2015 he made calls from prison telephones. Both were made to one of the complainants, B. The first call was intended to have her retract her own allegations, and the second to have B procure another complainant, S, to retract hers. On 11 March Corrections provided the police with recordings of the two conversations. [4] On 6 July 2015 the appellant appeared in the Hamilton District Court. By now he faced 12 charges, being 10 of family violence (assault and contravening a protection order) and two of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The perverting charges were specific to each of the two telephone calls; that is, they were not representative, nor was the second laid in substitution for the first. The first perverting charge had been laid on 18 March and the second on 19 June. [5] At the hearing on 6 July the appellant accepted a sentence indication of 22 months imprisonment with release conditions, and entered guilty pleas to all charges. The Crown invited Judge Spear to calculate cumulative sentences, but he declined, taking the view that it made no difference since the totality principle would apply to the sentencing. [6] Sentence was not passed until 27 October The sentences were 22 months imprisonment on the two charges of attempting to pervert the course of 1 2 Taylor v Superintendent of Auckland Prison [2003] 3 NZLR 752 (CA). Marino v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZHC 459.
3 justice and 12 months imprisonment on all the other charges. 3 All sentences were concurrent. They were short-term sentences, meaning that the appellant must be released after serving 11 months. 4 Passing sentence, Judge Spear said: 5 Taking the attempts to pervert the course of justice, as the lead charges here I impose the indicated sentence of 22 months imprisonment. That is subject to standard and special release conditions that will apply for six months from your sentence expiry date which is fast approaching. The issue [7] Under the Sentencing Act 2002 judges do not, generally speaking, take pre-sentence detention into account when passing sentence. 6 Rather, credit for pre-sentence detention is calculated by Corrections under the Parole Act. Section 90(1) of that Act provides that for the purpose of calculating the offender s statutory release date he or she is deemed to have been serving the sentence during any period spent in pre-sentence detention: 90 Period spent in pre-sentence detention deemed to be time served (1) For the purpose of calculating the key dates and non-parole period of a sentence of imprisonment (including a notional single sentence) and an offender's statutory release date and parole eligibility date, an offender is deemed to have been serving the sentence during any period that the offender has spent in pre-sentence detention. [8] Pre-sentence detention is defined in s 91: 91 Meaning of pre-sentence detention (1) Pre-sentence detention is detention of a type described in subsection (2) that occurs at any stage during the proceedings leading to the conviction or pending sentence of the person, whether that period (or any part of it) relates to any charge on which the person was eventually convicted; or any other charge on which the person was originally arrested; or R v Marino [2015] NZDC Section 86(1) of the Parole Act R v Marino, above n 3, at [8]. Section 82 of the Sentencing Act 2002.
4 (c) any charge that the person faced at any time between his or her arrest and before conviction. [9] Section 90(2) provides that where the offender is subject to two or more concurrent sentences the amount of pre-sentence detention applicable to each must be calculated and deducted from that sentence: (2) When an offender is subject to 2 or more concurrent sentences, the amount of pre-sentence detention applicable to each sentence must be determined; and the amount of pre-sentence detention that is deducted from each sentence must be the amount determined in relation to that sentence. [10] When the appellant s counsel challenged Corrections about his release date, he was told that: any time spent in custody counts as time served only to the individual charge that it relates to. Each charge has a Judicial Proceedings Date (JPD) that is the date that the actual proceedings commence, usually when the person is charged On nine of Mr Marino s twelve sentences, the JPDs, as advised by the court, are 27 October 2015, crediting Mr Marino with 257 pre-sentence detention days on each. Another sentence has a JPD of 18 March 2015 giving 223 pre-sentence detention days. The remaining two sentences have JPDs of 19 June 2015 (Obstruct/Pervert the Course of Justice) and 6 July 2015 (Contravenes Protection Order) for which Mr Marino has been credited with 113 pre-sentence detention days. It is these last two sentences that determine his release date, being the sentences upon which he has the longest period to serve. [11] The respondent says that Corrections calculation is correct because the sentencing Judge imposed 12 sentences, one for each offence as the Sentencing Act requires, and the period of pre-sentence detention applicable to each of them ran (since the appellant was already in custody) from the date on which the relevant charge was laid. The legislation specifies that the only period of pre-sentence detention for which credit may be given is that pertaining to the particular charge. The second charge of perverting the course of justice was laid on 19 June 2015, so the appellant s ultimate release date is 18 May 2016 and he is lawfully detained.
5 [12] The appellant says the calculation is wrong. He contends that he is subject to a single sentence, comprising 12 charges, and is entitled to credit for pre-sentence detention served since his arrest on 11 February Accordingly, his statutory release date was 12 January 2016, meaning that he is now unlawfully detained. Mr Ewen submitted that: When there is a single sentencing on a number of charges, whether they are related in time or circumstance or not, they form the proceedings for the purposes of section 91(1), whether severally or as a consolidated whole. The use of the plural would allow for either interpretation. [13] He contended that this approach: is consistent with s 85 of the Sentencing Act, which requires sentencing judges to apply the totality principle when sentencing on multiple charges; and creates no risk of a prisoner claiming credit for completely unrelated offending, as was attempted in Taylor. 7 [14] Mr Ewen further submitted that if the respondent is correct: a prisoner s release date may vary considerably for reasons of sentence architecture. For example, cumulative sentences totalling 22 months would have operated as a notional single sentence and the appellant would have received credit for all the pre-sentence detention served. 8 He observed that the Crown had argued for cumulative sentences in this case but the Judge responded that it would make no difference once allowance was made for totality; a prisoner s release date may vary considerably according to decisions made by the Crown about whether, and when, to amend a charge notice. In this case, for example, the Crown knew on 11 March about the second telephone call but elected not to charge the second offence until June; 7 8 Taylor v Superintendent of Auckland Prison, above n 1. Section 75 of the Parole Act.
6 (c) where a prisoner was on bail before sentence there would be no pre-sentence detention to credit toward the sentence and he or she would serve the sentence intended by the sentencing judge in this case, 22 months for all of the offending. That being so, a provision designed to ensure that prisoners get credit for time already served actually increases the effective sentence. In this case it has the consequence that instead of being released in January 2016, 11 months after his arrest, the appellant will not be released until May; and (d) the outcome must be characterised as arbitrary detention, contrary to s 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act The legislation [15] This is a question of statutory interpretation. We have cited s 91(1) of the Parole Act above. It defines pre-sentence detention as detention that occurs at any stage during the proceedings leading to the conviction or pending sentence, whether that period relates to any charge on which the person was originally arrested, or eventually convicted, or which the person faced after arrest and before conviction. 9 [16] The definition requires that proceedings exist, but nothing turns on that; a proceeding will always be in train between charge and sentence. The important point is that the definition addresses detention associated with a single charge leading to the conviction and pending sentence. The definition captures the charge on which the person was originally arrested and eventually convicted; and also any holding charge that was laid originally but not pursued; and also any charge laid subsequently by way of amendment to or substitution for the original charge; and also any other charge, whether related to the original charge or not, that the person faced between arrest on the original charge and before conviction on the original charge. The last category extends to the situation, as in R v Coward and Hall, where the offender is arrested on the original charge and bailed but then arrested and 9 The detention must also be of a type described in subs (2) but no issue arises about that on this appeal.
7 remanded in custody on an unrelated charge before eventually being sentenced on the original charge. 10 [17] We have cited s 90(2) of the Parole Act above but repeat it for convenience: (2) When an offender is subject to 2 or more concurrent sentences, the amount of pre-sentence detention applicable to each sentence must be determined; and the amount of pre-sentence detention that is deducted from each sentence must be the amount determined in relation to that sentence. It will be seen that this provision deals with concurrent sentences, and requires that each be the subject of a separate pre-sentence detention calculation. By contrast, ss 90(3) and 75 together deem cumulative sentences to be a notional single sentence. [18] A sentencing court s power to impose concurrent or cumulative sentences is found in s 83 of the Sentencing Act, which provides: 83 Cumulative and concurrent sentences of imprisonment (1) A determinate sentence of imprisonment may be imposed cumulatively on any other determinate sentence of imprisonment that the court directs, whether then imposed or to which the offender is already subject, including any sentence in respect of which a direction of that kind is or has been given. (5) Any sentence of imprisonment may be imposed concurrently with any other sentence of imprisonment. [19] This language does not require that concurrent and cumulative sentences must all be imposed on the same occasion. On the contrary, the section contemplates that they may be imposed on different occasions; subs (2), for example, provides that a court may not impose a sentence cumulatively upon a sentence to which the offender is presently subject but which he or she is no longer serving. [20] Section 85 of the Sentencing Act applies when a court is considering imposing sentences of imprisonment on two or more offences. Subsection (1) 10 R v Coward and Hall CA182/87, 18 December See too Taylor v Superintendent of Auckland Prison, above n 1, at [15].
8 provides that the individual sentences must reflect the seriousness of each offence. Subsection (2) requires that cumulative sentences must not result in a total period of imprisonment that is wholly out of proportion to the gravity of the overall offending. Where, as in this case, the sentences are concurrent, subs (4) provides that: the most serious offence must, subject to any maximum penalty provided for that offence, receive the penalty that is appropriate for the totality of the offending; and each of the lesser offences must receive the penalty appropriate to that offence. [21] It will be seen that these provisions contemplate that each offence will be the subject of a discrete sentence. That reflects the way in which offences are charged. Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 a criminal proceeding is commenced by filing a charging document, and a charging document must contain only one charge, which must relate to a single offence. 11 [22] In this setting, we find the meaning of the parole legislation plain. Pre-sentence detention must be calculated for each separate concurrent sentence, and one of those calculations will establish the prisoner s release date. The definition of pre-sentence detention establishes a primary meaning, that of detention between arrest and sentence on the charge the subject of the calculation, but it also ensures that the prisoner gets credit for pre-sentence detention served on a holding charge or a charge laid by way of amendment or substitution for the original charge, and for detention on any other charges that the prisoner faced between arrest and sentence on the original charge. 12 [23] The position is otherwise if the judge elects to impose cumulative sentences. In that case s 90(3) will be engaged, and all the time spent in pre-sentence detention that is related to the notional single sentence will be deducted: (3) When an offender is subject to 2 or more cumulative sentences that make a notional single sentence, any pre-sentence detention that relates to the cumulative sentences may be deducted only once from the single notional sentence Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 14, 16 and 17. The appellant argued in the High Court that the second perverting charge was a related offence, but that argument was dismissed and it is not pursued here.
9 [24] The appellant s argument that proceedings mandates a single pre-sentence detention calculation for all offences sentenced at the same time confronts insurmountable difficulties: It requires that the term concurrent sentences have a different meaning in s 90 than it does in the Sentencing Act, pursuant to which the offender was subjected to those same sentences. In the Sentencing Act the term refers to separate sentences that are to be served concurrently. In s 90 it would have to mean all sentences imposed on a single occasion, unless cumulative. It requires that concurrent sentences be treated as a notional single sentence. As noted, the Parole Act provides for notional single sentences when providing for key date calculations for cumulative sentences. 13 Had the legislature meant to take the same approach for concurrent sentences it would have said so. (c) In order to avoid the problem that prisoners might claim credit for time spent in detention on wholly unrelated offending, it adopts a distinction between sentences imposed on a single occasion and those imposed on separate occasions. The legislation does not support that distinction; as noted, concurrent or cumulative sentences need not all be imposed on the same occasion. (d) It could result, as Mr Perkins pointed out, in an offender getting credit for time spent in custody before he or she had committed the offence to which the credit would be attached. That would happen where the lead offence was committed after the initial arrest and all offences were sentenced on the same occasion. In this case, for example, the appellant would get credit on the perverting charges for time served since his arrest on 11 February, but he did not commit those offences until 26 February and 6 March respectively. 13 The term key dates is defined to include release dates at s 4(1) of the Parole Act.
10 [25] Mr Ewen argued that his construction is necessary to achieve the legislative objective and to avoid the arbitrary consequences mentioned at [14] above. We accept that the legislature intended to ensure that prisoners receive credit for pre-sentence detention on a given charge, but we do not accept that its object extended to credit for pre-sentence detention on other charges, except where the definition of pre-sentence detention so provides. We think rather that, as Courtney J put it in Maile v Manager, Mt Eden Correctional Facility: 14 The purpose of limiting credit for pre-sentence detention time to time relating to the charge on which the accused is ultimately convicted is to ensure that offences do not go unpunished through the ability of prisoners to use completely unrelated pre-sentence detention as a means of avoiding imprisonment on other charges (including, even, offences not yet committed at the time of the pre-sentence detention). [26] The argument that the legislature cannot have intended to cause arbitrary consequences rests on the premise that there is nothing a sentencing court can do about the anomaly that may result when a charge laid after arrest turns out to be the lead offence under s 85(4) of the Sentencing Act. Section 82 provides that when determining the length of any sentence of imprisonment a judge may not take into account any period during which the offender was on pre-sentence detention as defined in s 91 of the Parole Act. Mr Ewen contended that s 82 prohibits a sentencing judge from taking any pre-sentence detention, on whatever charge, into account when passing sentence. The section provides that: In determining the length of any sentence of imprisonment to be imposed, the court must not take into account any part of the period during which the offender was on pre-sentence detention as defined in section 91 of the Parole Act [27] There are two responses to that contention. The first is that sentencing judges may impose totality-adjusted cumulative sentences: as noted at [23] above, these cause no difficulty under s 90. The second is that the Court has previously indicated, in a sentencing context, that s 82 does not necessarily preclude consideration at sentencing of the effects that remand may have had in a particular case. 15 The Maile v Manager, Mt Eden Correction Facility [2012] NZAR 39 (HC). Ropiha v R [2013] NZCA 60 at [27].
11 Court said the effects of remand would need to be unexpected and unusual to merit any recognition, but we would not preclude it if such a case arose. 16 [28] It is arguable that this interpretation of s 82 is too narrow because neither s 82 nor the Sentencing Act more generally expressly preclude a judge from taking into account pre-sentence detention for which the offender will not get credit under s 90 when the release date is calculated. If that were correct then, by way of illustration, when sentencing on the second perverting charge Judge Spear could not have taken into account the period between 19 June and sentencing, but he could have taken into account the period between arrest on 11 February and the laying of that charge. In Gray v Manager, Waikeria Prison, a habeas corpus application aimed at a Corrections release date calculation, Brewer J considered that the period not within the definition of pre-sentence detention could be taken into account. 17 [29] This argument would require re-examination of several decisions of this Court on sentence appeals that approach pre-sentence detention in a more general way. 18 Our conclusions about s 90 suggest the Court should undertake that exercise, but we need not do so to dispose of this appeal. Habeas corpus is also not the appropriate forum in which to settle the meaning of s 82, or to decide whether the appellant s sentence was manifestly excessive through failure to recognise pre-sentence detention for which the appellant would not get credit under s 90 of the Parole Act. We record that at the hearing we suggested a sentence appeal. Other matters [30] Mr Ewen placed much weight on this Court s decisions in Attorney-General v Manga and R v Coward and Hall, and sought to explain and distinguish Taylor v Superintendent of Auckland Prison. 19 We adopt the analysis of Taylor that At [27]. Gray v Manager, Waikeria Prison [2014] NZHC 1745, [2014] NZAR 864 at [26]. They are Te Aho v R [2013] NZCA 47; Booth v R [2015] NZCA 603; Costello v R [2015] NZCA 512; and Kahui v R [2013] NZCA 124. The Supreme Court granted leave to Mr Kahui in Kahui v R [2013] NZSC 49 but the appeal was not pursued. Attorney-General v Manga [1999] 1 NZLR 129 (CA); R v Coward and Hall, above n 10; and Taylor v Superintendant of Auckland Prison, above n 1.
12 Simon France J employed in this case. 20 discuss the authorities or the legislative history. Beyond that, we do not find it necessary to Decision [31] The appeal is dismissed. Counsel may file memoranda if any issue arises as to costs. Solicitors: Kerry Burrows, Hamilton for Appellant Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent 20 Marino v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, above n 2, at [13] [15].
Sentencing Act Examinable excerpts of PART 1 PRELIMINARY. 1 Purposes
Examinable excerpts of Sentencing Act 1991 as at 10 April 2018 1 Purposes PART 1 PRELIMINARY The purposes of this Act are (a) to promote consistency of approach in the sentencing of offenders; (b) to have
More informationPenalties and Sentences Act 1985
Penalties and Sentences Act 1985 No. 10260 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Section 1. Purposes. 2. Commencement. 3. Definitions. PART 1 PRELIMINARY PART 2 GENERAL SENTENCING PROVISIONS 4. Court may take guilty plea
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 PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA116/2017 [2018] NZCA 477. CHRISTOPHER ROBERT HALPIN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY SS 203 AND 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE
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 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 informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON CRI CRI [2017] NZDC COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondent
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON CRI-2017-085-001139 CRI-2017-085-001454 [2017] NZDC 18584 BETWEEN AND DAVID HUGH CHORD ALLAN KENDRICK DEAN Appellants COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondent Hearing: 15 August
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 informationCOOK ISLANDS CRIMES (INTERNATIONALLY PROTECTED PERSONS AND HOSTAGES) ACT 1982 ANALYSIS
COOK ISLANDS CRIMES (INTERNATIONALLY PROTECTED PERSONS AND HOSTAGES) ACT 1982 ANALYSIS Title General Provisions 1. Short Title 2. Interpretation 9. Amendments to other Enactments Internationally 10. Crimes
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 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 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 informationCHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Appellant. ALAVINE FELIUIA LIU Respondent. Randerson, Harrison and Miller JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA754/2012 [2014] NZCA 37 BETWEEN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Appellant ALAVINE FELIUIA LIU Respondent Hearing: 5 February
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: The Queen v Hall [2018] QSC 101 PARTIES: THE QUEEN v GRAHAM WILLIAM McKENZIE HALL (defendant) FILE NO: Indictment No 0348/18 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Miller, Ronald Young and Clifford JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Miller J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA790/2013 [2014] NZCA 106 BETWEEN AND UGESH DUTT Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 4 March 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Miller, Ronald Young and Clifford
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 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 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 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 informationX. COOK ISLANDS CRIMES (INTERNATIONALLY PROTECTED PERSONS AND HOSTAGES) ACT 1982, NO. 6
X. COOK ISLANDS 21 1. CRIMES (INTERNATIONALLY PROTECTED PERSONS AND HOSTAGES) ACT 1982, NO. 6 An act of Parliament of the Cook Islands to give effect to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2014 [2015] NZSC 132. MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION Respondent
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2014 [2015] NZSC 132 BETWEEN JIAXI GUO First Appellant JIAMING GUO Second Appellant AND MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION Respondent Hearing: 9 July 2015 Court: Counsel:
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 informationS G C. Dangerous Offenders. Sentencing Guidelines Council. Guide for Sentencers and Practitioners
S G C Sentencing Guidelines Council Dangerous Offenders Guide for Sentencers and Practitioners CONTENTS PART ONE Introduction 5 PART TWO PART THREE Criteria for imposing sentences under the dangerous
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 informationTHE EXTRADITION ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation PART II EXTRADITION TO AND
THE EXTRADITION ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation PART II EXTRADITION TO AND FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES A. Application of this Part 3.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN. S N McKenzie for Crown
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI-2014-425-000043 [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN v Hearing: 15 December 2014 R Appearances: H T Young for Appellant S N McKenzie for Crown Judgment:
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 informationJUDGMENT. R v Smith (Appellant)
Trinity Term [2011] UKSC 37 On appeal from: [2010] EWCA Crim 530 JUDGMENT R v Smith (Appellant) before Lord Phillips, President Lord Walker Lady Hale Lord Collins Lord Wilson JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 20 July
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 informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Williams, Venning and Mander JJ. A G V Rogers, M H McIvor and J Kim for Appellant M H Cooke for Respondent
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR
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 informationFINAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT: FAILING TO SURRENDER TO BAIL
FINAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT: FAILING TO SURRENDER TO BAIL 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This document fulfils the Council s statutory duty to produce a resource assessment which considers the likely effect of its guidelines
More informationCriminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015
Version: 9. 7. 2015 Act uncommenced South Australia Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 An Act to provide for the making of extended supervision orders and continuing detention orders in relation
More informationGuideline Judgments Case Compendium - Update 2: June 2006 CASE NAME AND REFERENCE
SUBJECT CASE NAME AND REFERENCE (A) GENERIC SENTENCING PRINCIPLES Sentence length Dangerousness R v Lang and others [2005] EWCA Crim 2864 R v S and others [2005] EWCA Crim 3616 The CPS v South East Surrey
More information(other than the Central People's Government or the government of any other
FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 503 FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ORDINANCE - LONG TITLE Long title VerDate:06/30/1997 An Ordinance to make provision for the surrender to certain places outside Hong Kong of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA553/2010 [2011] NZCA 368. Appellant. SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE LIMITED Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA553/2010 [2011] NZCA 368 BETWEEN AND ASB BANK LIMITED Appellant SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 22 June 2011 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Randerson,
More informationLAWS OF WESTERN SAMOA CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANALYSIS PART II PROCEDURE FOR PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES. Arrest
LAWS OF WESTERN SAMOA CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ANALYSIS TITLE PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Application PART II PROCEDURE FOR PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES Arrest 4. Arrest
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 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 informationCRIMINAL LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) ACT 1992 No. 2
CRIMINAL LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) ACT 1992 No. 2 NEW SOUTH WALES 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Amendments 4. Explanatory notes TABLE OF PROVISIONS SCHEDULE 1 AMENDMENT OF CRIMES ACT 1900 NO. 40 SCHEDULE
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 informationTitle 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE
Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE Chapter 51: SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT Table of Contents Part 3.... Section 1251. IMPRISONMENT FOR MURDER... 3 Section 1252. IMPRISONMENT FOR CRIMES OTHER THAN MURDER...
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 informationJustice Sector Outlook
Justice Sector Outlook March 216 quarter Contents Summary of the current quarter 1 Environmental factors are mixed 2 Emerging risks of upwards pipeline pressures 3 Criminal justice pipeline 4 Pipeline
More informationAct XXXVIII of 1996 on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Chapter I GENERAL RULES
Act XXXVIII of 1996 on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Chapter I GENERAL RULES Section 1 The purpose of this Act is to regulate cooperation with other states in criminal matters. Section
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON April 6, 2005 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON April 6, 2005 Session RICKEY HOGAN v. DAVID G. MILLS, WARDEN, ET AL. Appeal by Permission from the Court of Criminal Appeals Circuit Court for Lauderdale County
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 information2018 VT 121. No On Appeal from v. Superior Court, Orleans Unit, Civil Division. Sarah J. Systo October Term, 2018
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions
More informationCommonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JULY 29, 2005; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2004-CA-001033-MR KENNETH RAVENSCRAFT APPELLANT APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE STEVEN
More informationCHAPTER 10:04 FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART l PART II
Fugitive Offenders 3 CHAPTER 10:04 FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART l PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART II GENERAL PROVISIONS 3. Application of this Act in
More informationRICHARD LYALL GENGE Applicant. VISITING JUSTICE CHRISTCHURCH MENʼS PRISON First Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CIV-2018-409-000212 [2018] NZHC 1457 BETWEEN AND AND AND RICHARD LYALL GENGE Applicant VISITING JUSTICE CHRISTCHURCH
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 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 informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2014] NZEmpC 208 CRC 14/14. Defendant. Plaintiff HARLENE HAYNE, VICE-
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND [2014] NZEmpC 208 CRC 14/14 challenges to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority HARLENE HAYNE, VICE- CHANCELLOR OF THE
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 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 informationEXTRADITION ACT Act 7 of 2017 NOT IN OPERATION ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES
EXTRADITION ACT Act 7 of 2017 NOT IN OPERATION ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES Clause PART I PRELIMINARY 16. Proceedings after arrest 1. Short title 17. Search and seizure 2. Interpretation Sub-Part C Eligibility
More informationProvincial Offences Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.33
Français Provincial Offences Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.33 Consolidation Period: From May 15, 2012 to the e-laws currency date. Last amendment: 2011, c. 1, Sched. 1, s. 7. SKIP TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS
More informationAGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, ANALYSIS TO: and
LFC Requester: AGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, EMAIL ANALYSIS TO: LFC@NMLEGIS.GOV and DFA@STATE.NM.US {Include the bill no. in the email subject line, e.g., HB2,
More informationIN 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 informationJUDGMENT. R (on the application of Gibson) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Justice (Respondent)
Hilary Term [2018] UKSC 2 On appeal from: [2015] EWCA Civ 1148 JUDGMENT R (on the application of Gibson) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Justice (Respondent) before Lord Mance, Deputy President Lord
More informationOffender Management Act 2007
Offender Management Act 2007 CHAPTER 21 Explanatory Notes have been produced to assist in the understanding of this Act and are available separately 7 50 Offender Management Act 2007 CHAPTER 21 CONTENTS
More informationVictims Rights and Support Act 2013 No 37
New South Wales Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 No 37 Contents Part 1 Part 2 Preliminary Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Definitions 2 Victims rights Division 1 Preliminary 4 Object of Part
More informationPolice Detention Legal Assistance Service
April 2018 Police Detention Legal Assistance Service Operational policy Although all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this document, the Ministry
More informationJustice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004
Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004 CHAPTER 4 CONTENTS The judiciary 1 Transfer to Lord Chancellor of functions relating to Judicial Appointments Commission 2 Membership of the Commission 3 Duty of Commission
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC Plaintiff. AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-002795 [2016] NZHC 1199 BETWEEN AND ALWYNE JONES Plaintiff AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant Hearing: 29 February 2016 Appearances: R Pidgeon for
More informationLCDT 015/10. of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1. Applicant. BRETT DEAN RAVELICH, of Auckland, Barrister
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZLCDT 11 LCDT 015/10 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 Applicant AND BRETT
More information1990 CHAPTER S HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows:
1990 CHAPTER S-63.1 An Act respecting Summary Offences Procedure and Certain consequential amendments resulting from the enactment of this Act (Assented to June 22, 1990) HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183 PARTIES: R v BRADFORTH, Nathan Paul (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 423 of 2002 SC No 551 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 339 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Cant v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] QSC 62 CRAIG CANT (applicant) v COMMONWEALTH
More informationCUSTOMARY RECONCILIATION IN SENTENCING FOR SEXUAL OFFENCES IN VANUATU
CUSTOMARY RECONCILIATION IN SENTENCING FOR SEXUAL OFFENCES IN VANUATU ARTHI BANDHANA SWAMY This paper seeks to explore how legal recognition of customary reconciliation can deliver justice to victims of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA67/04 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY WILLIAM YOUNG J
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA67/04 BETWEEN AND BENJAMIN EUGENE MANUEL Appellant THE SUPERINTENDENT, HAWKES BAY REGIONAL PRISON Respondent Hearing: 6 May 2004 Coram: McGrath J Hammond J William
More informationCAMILLE IRIANA THOMPSON Appellant. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent. H A Cull QC and D A Ewen for Appellant S M Kinsler and A C Walker for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA590/2014 [2016] NZCA 215 BETWEEN AND CAMILLE IRIANA THOMPSON Appellant THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent Hearing: 24 February 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild,
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CIV [2018] NZHC 971. IN THE MATTER of the Companies Act 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CIV-2016-409-000814 [2018] NZHC 971 IN THE MATTER of the Companies Act 1993 BETWEEN AND THE COMMISSIONER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC 923. LEE RUTH ANDERSON Applicant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2015-404-000039 [2015] NZHC 923 BETWEEN AND LEE RUTH ANDERSON Applicant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 28 April 2015 Appearances: D Schellenberg
More informationBE it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with
Act No. 16, 1912. An Act to establish a court of criminal appeal; to amend the law relating to appeals in criminal cases ; to provide for better consideration of petitions of convicted persons ; to amend
More informationCHAPTER 113A CRIMINAL APPEAL
1 L.R.O. 2002 Criminal Appeal CAP. 113A CHAPTER 113A CRIMINAL APPEAL ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION CITATION 1. Short title. INTERPRETATION 2. Definitions. PART I CRIMINAL APPEALS FROM HIGH COURT 3. Right
More informationLaw Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Act 2005 No 119
New South Wales Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Act 2005 No 119 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002
More informationPrisoners Act [1900] [Act No. 3 of 1900]
Prisoners Act [1900] [Act No. 3 of 1900] An Act to consolidate the law relating to Prisoners confined by order of a Court. Whereas it is expedient to consolidate the law relating to prisoners confined
More informationAPPEARANCES Mr E J Hudson for the Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee No 2 Mr P F Gorringe for Mr XXXX
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2010] NZLCDT 14 LCDT 025/09 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN WAIKATO BAY OF PLENTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE No.2 Applicant
More informationSTATE OF MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS REQUEST TO EXERCISE VICTIMS RIGHTS
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS REQUEST TO EXERCISE VICTIMS RIGHTS FOR VICTIM TO SIGN: I,, victim of the crime of, (victim) (crime committed) committed on, by in, (date) (name of offender,
More informationBefore: LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE MRS JUSTICE ANDREWS DBE. - and - J U D G M E N T
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohi bit the publication
More informationSPICe Briefing Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill: Custodial Sentences
SPICe Briefing Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill: Custodial Sentences 25 January 2012 Frazer McCallum 12/08 The Scottish Government introduced the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND Second Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2014-404-002481 [2015] NZHC 2098 BETWEEN AND AND AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Plaintiff JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND Second Plaintiff WEATHERTIGHT HOMES
More informationSENATE BILL NO. 34 IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRTY-FIRST LEGISLATURE - FIRST SESSION A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED
SENATE BILL NO. IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRTY-FIRST LEGISLATURE - FIRST SESSION BY THE SENATE RULES COMMITTEE BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR Introduced: // Referred: State Affairs, Finance
More informationPRISONS ACT AMENDMENT.
No. 31.] Prisons Act Amendment. [1918. PRISONS ACT AMENDMENT. 9 GEO. V., No. XXI. B No. 31 of 1918. AN ACT to amend the Prisons Act, 1903. [Assented to 16th December, 1918.] E it enacted by the King's
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : vs. : NO. 216 CR 2010 : 592 CR 2010 JOSEPH WOODHULL OLIVER, JR., : Defendant : Criminal Law
More informationNumber 10 of 1999 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1999 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I. Preliminary and General. Section 1. Interpretation.
Section 1. Interpretation. Number 10 of 1999 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1999 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Preliminary and General 2. Citation and commencement. 3. Expenses. PART II Amendments to Provide for
More informationDOMESTIC ABUSE (SCOTLAND) BILL
DOMESTIC ABUSE (SCOTLAND) BILL FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION 1. As required under Rule 9.3.2 of the Parliament s Standing Orders, this Financial Memorandum is published to accompany the Domestic Abuse
More informationDECISION IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2014] NZIACDT 102 Reference No: IACDT 11/12 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationCHAPTER 96 EXTRADITION ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
[CH.96 1 CHAPTER 96 LIST OF AUTHORISED PAGES 1 14B LRO 1/2006 15 21 Original SECTION ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Application of the provisions of this
More informationMINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION MTHATHA Case No. 2074/11 Date heard: 25/2/15 Date delivered: 27/2/15 Not reportable In the matter between: VUYISA SOFIKA Plaintiff and MINISTER
More informationCriminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Act 2014 No 83
New South Wales Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Act 2014 No 83 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 New South Wales Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence
More informationSTATE OF NEW JERSEY. ASSEMBLY, No th LEGISLATURE
ASSEMBLY, No. STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED JUNE, 0 Sponsored by: Assemblyman SEAN T. KEAN District 0 (Monmouth and Ocean) Assemblyman DAVID P. RIBLE District 0 (Monmouth and Ocean) Co-Sponsored
More informationCriminal Procedure Code No. 301/2005 Coll.
Criminal Procedure Code No. 301/2005 Coll. P A R T F I V E L E G A L R E L A T I O N S W I T H A B R O A D CHAPTER ONE BASIC PROVISIONS Section 477 Definitions For the purposes of this Chapter: a) an international
More informationSpent or Unspent? This document should be considered a guide to the position in England and Wales only.
Spent or Unspent? Introduction This document should be considered a guide to the position in England and Wales only. Further information and guidance is available from the Ministry Of Justice, specifically
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Weiss, 180 Ohio App.3d 509, 2009-Ohio-78.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, CASE NO. 14-08-29 v. WEISS, O P I N I O N APPELLEE.
More informationFlorida Senate SB 170 By Senator Lynn
By Senator Lynn 1 A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to the sentencing of youthful 3 offenders; amending s. 958.04, F.S.; 4 prohibiting the court from sentencing a person 5 as a youthful offender
More informationNEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2017] NZLCDT 39 LCDT 023/17. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2017] NZLCDT 39 LCDT 023/17 UNDER The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN HAWKE S BAY STANDARDS COMMITTEE Applicant AND KRIS ANTHONY DENDER
More information