IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY TO30332 Q U E E N RICHARD GEOFFREY BULL SENTENCE OF LAURENSON J.
|
|
- Tabitha Newman
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 SENTENCE OF LAURENSON J. Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, PO Box 19173, Hamilton W Pyke, PO Box 19271, Hamilton Q U E E N V RICHARD GEOFFREY BULL HC HAM TO30332 [6 April 2004]
2 Introduction [1] Mr Bull, you were found guilty by a jury in the High Court at Hamilton on 4 March 2004 on: a) Four counts of indecency with three different boys between the age of 12 and 16, those charges being laid under s140(a)(1)(a) of the Crimes Act The maximum penalty on each count is seven years. b) Eight counts of sexual violation laid under s128(1)(b) of the Crimes Act in respect of one of those boys. Two of those charges related to unlawful sexual connection, namely connection between his mouth and your penis. One was a specific charge and the second a representative charge covering a period of one year between June 2001 and June The remaining six counts related to unlawful sexual connection, namely anal intercourse by you with the boy. One of these counts was a representative count concerning the period June 2001 to June The maximum penalty in each of these counts is imprisonment for twenty years. [2] Following the verdicts of guilty by the jury, which, I should mention, were delivered after a very brief time of some 35 minutes, you were convicted and remanded for sentence until today. Factual Background [3] The evidence revealed that you had come to know each of the three boys after they started attending your climbing gym in Hamilton. [4] The two boys who had not been subjected to sexual violation had both been indecently assaulted by you in 1997.
3 [5] The offending in relation to the third boy had occurred between June 2001 and June [6] In each case the offending had followed a similar pattern. You had fostered a friendship with each of them which then led to a relationship going beyond that of an owner or manager of a gym, with users of the gym, and to the point where you took them away for climbing trips. You groomed the boys to receive sexual advances from you commencing with massaging and leading on to the indecent fondling of their genitalia. In the case of the offending in 1997 both the boys firmly rejected your advances. [7] The third boy, in respect of whom the major offending occurred, was by reason of his particular personal circumstances far more susceptible to those advances. He was the subject of a far more concerted seduction by you. This involved gifts, various types of threat and blandishments all designed to overcome his reluctance and dislike for what eventually happened. The net result was that over a period of about one year you obtained his compliance to what occurred. The jury very clearly rejected any suggestion that he provided a full consent or that you had any reasonable grounds for believing he did. [8] Having heard the evidence Mr Bull, I am satisfied that in relation to the three boys concerned you quite cold bloodedly set out to seduce them. What you did was premeditated and deliberate. [9] To assist me in considering an appropriate sentence, I called for, and obtained a pre-sentence report, victim impact reports, and a reparation report. I now refer to each of these in turn. Pre-Sentence Report [10] This report refers to the following matters: a) You are a single man, 33 years of age. b) You report that you have had no significant relationships.
4 c) You described your sexuality as bisexual, leaning towards gay. d) For a number of years you were managing the [ ] Climbing Centre, a business owned by yourself and your parents. This apparently ceased after you had been charged with the present offences with the result that you report that you have no income, no savings, and you have a business debt of $100,000 which your parents have taken over. e) Your mother describes you as a kind, gentle and honest person who had a passion for the sport of climbing, and who had built a successful business offering climbing training and opportunities to climb to young people who you went out of your way to help. Your family is very clearly standing by you at this time. f) When interviewed by the Probation Officer you maintained your not guilty stance saying that the sexual offending against the boy who I will describe as the principal victim had not happened at all, and that you believed that the other two boys who had been assaulted in 1997 had conspired to make the complaint. You admit massaging the boys during the events in 1997 but deny any intentional or indecent touching. g) You are a first offender with no previous convictions. h) No assessment of motivation to change could be made, given that you have continued to deny guilt. i) The recommendation by the probation officer is for imprisonment. Victim impact reports [11] There is a common theme running through all of these. a) Each of the boys was a keen, active and talented climber.
5 b) They looked to you for help and assistance in this sport. You helped and encouraged them, and thereby gained their confidence. c) The offending occurred when all three were passing through the stage of puberty. d) The offending confused and bewildered them and caused them all to have doubts as to their sexuality which has had the result of leaving them all with difficulties in their relationships with other people to this point. e) All three of them have ceased their involvement in climbing which in the case of the principal victim has meant a severe loss to him. f) The impact of the offending on the principal victim has been severe causing him, he says, to become involved in a lifestyle involving drugs. g) They all report being embarrassed, confused and angered by what happened. Reparation report [12] Clearly, there is no prospect of reparation nor has any been sought. Sentencing Act 2002 [13] The Crown has identified the following purposes of sentencing under s7 of the Act as being relevant. a) To hold you accountable for the harm done to the victims and the community by the offending (s7(1)(a)). b) To promote in you a sense of responsibility for and acknowledgement of that harm (s7(1)(b)).
6 c) To provide for the interests of the victim of the offence (s7(1)(c)). d) To provide reparation for the harm done by the offending (s7(1)(d)). e) To denounce the conduct in which you were involved (s7(1)(e)). f) To deter you or other persons from committing the same or similar offending (s7(1)(f)). g) To protect the community from you (s7(1)(g)). [14] The Crown has identified the following principles of sentencing pursuant to s8 of the Act as being applicable to this case. a) To take into account the gravity of the offending including the degree of your culpability (s8(a)). b) To take into account the seriousness of the offending in comparison with other types of offences as indicated by the maximum penalties prescribed for the offences (s8(b)). c) To impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence if the offending is within the most serious cases for which the penalty is prescribed unless the circumstances relating to you make that inappropriate (s8(c)). d) To impose a penalty near to the maximum prescribed for the offences if the offending is near to the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed unless circumstances relating to you make that inappropriate (s8(d)). e) To take into account the general desirability of consistency in sentencing (s8(e)).
7 f) To take into account information provided to the Court concerning the effect of the offending on the victims (s8(f)). g) To impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances (s8(g)). Aggravating factors [15] These, in my view, can be summarised as follows: a) The fact that there were three victims. b) They were all at a young and vulnerable age. c) The offending occurred in two periods i.e and 2001/2002.The last period of offending occurred after you had indecently assaulted the two other victims and had been soundly rebuffed by them. d) In each case, there was a breach of trust involved particularly in the case of the principal victim. You took advantage of the youth, vulnerability and enthusiasm for climbing of all three boys to engender confidence in you which you subsequently sadly betrayed. e) Each case involved an element of grooming or premeditation. In the case of the principal victim the ongoing offending was accompanied by what I can only describe as manipulative, and in some instances, cruelly manipulative behaviour. f) You have shown no remorse and, indeed, have denied any offending. You were not obliged to give evidence but if this was indeed your defence then I have to say that it may have obtained some sympathy at this stage if you had been prepared to submit yourself to crossexamination in the same way, as did the victims. I have already noted that the jury was sufficiently impressed with their evidence to take only some 35 minutes to reach its verdict.
8 [16] The Crown was unable to point to any mitigating features other than the fact that you are 33 years of age and have not previously appeared before the Court. I note, however, in this regard that you had apparently been offending since you were 26, or first offended when you were 26. [17] Counsel on your behalf referred to the very large number of obviously sincere, personal references, which have been supplied by members of your family, friends and associates. I have read all of these. In addition, your sister spoke to me this morning of these matters to the extent to which you received support from your family, what a good family it has been, what a good and happy upbringing you have had, the sort of person that you have demonstrated to her and others honesty, reliability, kindness and caring for others. She described you as a kind, gentle, forgiving, generous, reflective and considerate person. In all, she spoke in a most eloquent, sincere and compelling manner. Sentencing purposes, principles and levels [18] I agree with the Crown s assessment of the relevant sentencing purposes but I have to say that, in my view, the principal purpose in this case must be deterrence. [19] I also agree with the Crown s assessment of the relevant sentencing principles but note that this offending occurred prior to 1 July 2002 when the Sentencing Act came into force and accordingly the sentence must conform to the levels of sentencing prior to that date. [20] There is, in my view, clearly no option open to the Court in this case other than imprisonment as recommended by the probation officer. [21] The offending involved sexual offending against young people. As the Court of Appeal has said in R v B [1986] 2 NZLR 751, the effects of this type of offending have a profoundly detrimental effect on such people with long term effects which can be incalculable. There are indications that the fact that you have been detected
9 and convicted may have brought some element of closure to the victims in this case. I sincerely hope so. When young and valuable people are involved as victims in this type of offending the sentence must reflect society s complete denunciation of the offenders involved. [22] The Court of Appeal in R v Tavinor (CA 313/94, 27 March 1995) said that there is no distinction between anal and vaginal penetration when considering the appropriate approach to sentencing for such offending. This view has been consistently repeated since then. [23] In R v A [1994] 2 NZLR 129, the Court of Appeal determined that a starting point of 8 years imprisonment was appropriate before going on to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the particular case. [24] The Crown referred to two cases as being indicative of an appropriate sentence in this case. The first was R v T ( CRNZ 51 (CA)), in which the Court upheld a sentence of 15 years imprisonment with a minimum term of imprisonment of 9 years in a case involving the indecent assault and sexual violation of a girl under the age of 12. The offending having taken place over a period of 7 years. This too was a case in which the offending had occurred before 1 July 2002 and where the sentence passed was accepted as being consistent with sentencing prior to that date. [25] In R v M (2003) 20 CRNZ 231 (CA), the Court upheld a sentence of 11 years imprisonment reduced by 2 years in respect of a plea of guilty with a minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. In that case, the sentence had involved a stepdaughter aged 17 and 18 over a 2-year period but against a background of offending going back to the time when the victim was 11 or 12. [26] Your counsel has referred to R v Lander (CA 276/01, 29 November 2001) where a sentence of 8 years was imposed in respect of continuing offending by anal intercourse with a boy under 16. I do not regard this as being comparable given the Court indicated the aggravating features could have justified a higher sentence.
10 These were, however, offset by the mitigating features, which, so far as this case is concerned, was notably remorse which is not present in the present case. The sentence in this case [27] I have already noted that the sentence must confirm to the level of sentencing for this type of offending which existed prior to 1 July [28] I see no reason why the starting point of 8 years imprisonment referred to in R v A should not apply. [29] To that must be added a recognition of the aggravating features disclosed in this case. These I have already referred to. [30] Notwithstanding the extent of the aggravating features disclosed in this case, I do not consider that the sentence in R v T represents a level of sentence which is appropriate in this case given the younger age of the victim and the length of offending in that case. [31] The sentence in R v M is however of some assistance but not entirely so. Taking into account the number of victims in this case, the fact they were more youthful and what I see as predatory and manipulative conduct by you in relation to the victims who were entrusted to you, I consider a higher sentence is required in this case. Having considered the Crown s submission I find that the higher sentence submitted of 12 years is appropriate, particularly when considering the totality of the offending in this case. [32] The only mitigating features are, as I have said, the fact that at age 33 you have no previous convictions and, in addition, you have led a worthwhile life apart from the offending, during which you have clearly been helpful and considerate of others. These matters have to be seen however, in the light of the fact that you were offending from the age of 26. It is clear that you retain the support and confidence of your family and friends. I regret having to say, that the evidence in this case, and the
11 reaction to it by the jury, leave me with no other conclusion that you have let them all down too. [33] I therefore sentence you to: 12 years imprisonment on each of the six charges of anal intercourse (counts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10). 5 years imprisonment on each of the two charges of unlawful sexual connection (counts 2 and 4). 1 year s imprisonment on each of the four charges of indecent assault (counts 1, 11, 12 and 13). All these sentences are to be served concurrently. Minimum sentence [34] The Crown has submitted that the offending in this case requires that a minimum sentence be imposed pursuant to s86 of the Act because the aggravating features in this case are sufficiently serious to require a departure from the normal outcome of a sentence, namely that offenders are to be released after serving onethird of their sentence. Having considered the matter in the light of the Court of Appeal s decision in R v T and R v M, I agree that the aggravating features present in this case do bring it within the category of being sufficiently serious to justify a minimum term of imprisonment. The fact that you were prepared to, and did act in a predatory and manipulative manner, directed as the Crown said at trial to achieving the compliance but not consent of the three different victims leaves me in no doubt that your offending was very serious indeed. The scale of the offending also arguably takes it out of the ordinary range of offending of the particular kind. It is my clear view that quite apart from the victims, the public, and in particular the parents of young children who entrust their children to persons who provide training or recreation for them are entitled to be protected from persons such as yourself who are prepared to deliberately take advantage of that trust.
12 [35] For these reasons, and having regard to the minimum sentences imposed in the two cases I have referred to, namely R & T and R & M, I have decided that a minimum sentence of 6½ years should be imposed in your case in relation to counts 5, 6 7 8, 9 & 10. In doing so, I want to make it clear that I have paid regard to the submissions made by your counsel, Mr Pyke that this term should take into account the prospect of you eventually gaining some insight into your offending, thereby promoting your eventual rehabilitation and reform. [36] Please stand down. Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
THE 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationISSUES. Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing. Prepared by: Andrew Mason
SENTENCING ISSUES Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Prepared by: Andrew Mason Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site:
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 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 informationTHE CROWN JUNIOR SAMI. NOTES OF JUDGE FWM McELREA ON SENTENCING
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND THE CROWN v JUNIOR SAMI Hearing: 14 October 2005 Appearances: S McColgan for the Crown J Edgar for the Defendant NOTES OF JUDGE FWM McELREA ON SENTENCING [1] The defendant,
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 informationAppendix 2 Law on sexual offences Introduction Sexual assault Age of consent
Appendix 2 Law on sexual offences Introduction A2.1 This chapter examines the legal framework within which allegations of child sexual abuse have been investigated, prosecuted and adjudicated upon in the
More informationPUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations. Medical Practitioner: Dates: 26/07/ /07/2018. GMC reference number: Tyne
PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 26/07/2018-27/07/2018 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Neil Ineson GMC reference number: 2431350 Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Conviction / Caution MB BS 1978 University
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v WBG [2018] QCA 284 PARTIES: R v WBG (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 30 of 2018 DC No 2160 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Sentence
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 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 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 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 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 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 informationCRIMES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1989 No. 198
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1989 No. 198 NEW SOUTH WALES TABLE OF PROVISIONS 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Amendment of Crimes Act 1900 No. 40 ASSAULT SCHEDULE 2 - AMENDMENTS RELATING TO PENALTIES CRIMES
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 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 informationCitation: R. v. Finck, 2017 NSPC 73. Matthew Finck. Restriction on Publication: Pursuant to s of the Criminal Code DECISION ON SENTENCE
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Finck, 2017 NSPC 73 Date: 20171129 Docket: 8074143/8074144 Registry: Amherst Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Matthew Finck Restriction on Publication:
More informationTHE QUEEN. and AKEEM SEBASTIAN
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS (CRIMINAL JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL CASE NO 21 of 2007 THE QUEEN and AKEEM SEBASTIAN Appearances: Mr. Terrance Williams, Director of Public Prosecutions and Ms. Tiffany Scatliffe, Crown
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 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 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 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 informationNEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. Decision No. [2009] NZLCDT 15 LCDT 09/09. IN THE MATTER of the Law Practitioners Act 1982
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No. [2009] NZLCDT 15 LCDT 09/09 IN THE MATTER of the Law Practitioners Act 1982 BETWEEN AUCKLAND DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY Applicant AND EMMA
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,893 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, TONY JAY MEYER, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,893 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. TONY JAY MEYER, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Saline District
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 [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 informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) THE QUEEN AND. 2012: April17
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) SAINT LUCIA CRIMINAL CASE NO. SLUCRD 2009/0429 0431 BETWEEN: THE QUEEN AND Claimant MARC ST ROSE Defendant Appearances: Mr. Alfred
More informationCRIMES AMENDMENT (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL 2008
Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 26 November 2008, Proof) Proof Extract from NSW Legislative Council Hansard and Papers Wednesday, 26 November 2008 (Proof). CRIMES AMENDMENT (SEXUAL OFFENCES)
More informationSentencing 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 informationSEX OFFENDERS (JERSEY) LAW 2010
SEX OFFENDERS (JERSEY) LAW 2010 Revised Edition Showing the law as at 1 January 2017 This is a revised edition of the law Sex Offenders (Jersey) Law 2010 Arrangement SEX OFFENDERS (JERSEY) LAW 2010 Arrangement
More informationIN HER MAJESTY'S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND THE QUEEN. -v- ROBERT MAGILL
IN HER MAJESTY'S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND ---------- THE QUEEN -v- ROBERT MAGILL ---------- HUTTON LCJ This is an appeal against sentences imposed by His Honour Judge Watt QC at Newtownards
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 informationNursing and Midwifery Council:
Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee Substantive Hearing 26 January 2018 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE Name of Registrant Nurse: Mr Richard Imperio NMC
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationHSC Legal Studies. Year 2017 Mark Pages 46 Published Feb 6, Legal Studies: Crime. By Rose (99.4 ATAR)
HSC Legal Studies Year 2017 Mark 97.00 Pages 46 Published Feb 6, 2017 Legal Studies: Crime By Rose (99.4 ATAR) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Your notes author, Rose. Rose achieved an ATAR of 99.4 in
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, AD 2014 (Criminal Jurisdiction) INDICTMENT NO C82/05
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, AD 2014 (Criminal Jurisdiction) Central District INDICTMENT NO C82/05 THE QUEEN and JAMIE DAWSON BEFORE: Hon. Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin July 28 & August 12, 2014. Appearances:
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 informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacLean, 2015 NSPC 70. v. Nathan Fred Grant MacLean SENTENCING DECISION
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacLean, 2015 NSPC 70 Date: 2015-10-15 Docket: 2825618 Registry: Pictou Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Nathan Fred Grant MacLean SENTENCING DECISION Restriction
More informationSRA Assessment of Character and Suitability Rules
SRA Assessment of Character and Suitability Rules Introduction All individuals applying for admission or seeking restoration to the roll of solicitors or those applying to become or renewing their registration
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 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 informationThe Code. for Crown Prosecutors
The Code for Crown Prosecutors January 2013 Introduction 1.1 The Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences
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 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Her Majesty the Queen. against A.W.W. BEFORE: The Honourable Justice Gordon L. Campbell. Decision on Sentence
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: R. v. A.W.W. 2010 PESC 35 Date: 20100715 Docket:S1 GC-724 Registry: Charlottetown Her Majesty the Queen against A.W.W. BEFORE: The Honourable Justice Gordon
More informationHOME INVASIONS FIRST ISSUED: APRIL 3, 2000 LAST SUBSTANTIVE REVISION: APRIL 3, 2000
DOCUMENT TITLE: HOME INVASIONS NATURE OF DOCUMENT: AG DIRECTIVE FIRST ISSUED: APRIL 3, 2000 LAST SUBSTANTIVE REVISION: APRIL 3, 2000 EDITED / DISTRIBUTED: SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 NOTE: THIS POLICY DOCUMENT IS
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 information21. Creating criminal offences
21. Creating criminal offences Criminal offences are the most serious form of sanction that can be imposed under law. They are one of a variety of alternative mechanisms for achieving compliance with legislation
More informationThe NSW Child Protection Register
The NSW Child Protection Register Ongoing consequences of child sex offences and offences relating to non-compliance Two Acts in NSW have established a Child Protection Register and create orders which
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 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 informationCriminal Litigation Accreditation Scheme Standards of competence for the accreditation of solicitors representing clients in the magistrates court
Criminal Litigation Accreditation Scheme Standards of competence for the accreditation of solicitors representing clients in the magistrates court Contents Part 1 Underpinning knowledge...3 1.1 An understanding
More informationSentencing and the Correctional System. Chapter 11
Sentencing and the Correctional System Chapter 11 1 Once a person has been found guilty of committing a crime, the judge imposes a sentence, or punishment. Generally, the goals of sentencing are to punish
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 informationS G C. Sexual Offences Act Definitive Guideline. Sentencing Guidelines Council
S G C Sentencing Guidelines Council Sexual Offences Act 2003 Definitive Guideline FOREWORD In accordance with section 170(9) of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003, the Sentencing Guidelines Council issues
More informationGuidebook for Sentence Appeals
Guidebook for Sentence Appeals STEP 1: Reasons to Appeal 1.1 Before you start This online guide explains how to appeal a sentence (imposed for a conviction for an indictable offence) on your own. Before
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 informationGuidelines for making a Victim Impact Statement
Guidelines for making a Victim Impact Statement What is a victim impact statement? A victim impact statement is information on how an offence has affected you. The information you provide in your victim
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 informationImposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Definitive Guideline
Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 2 Imposition of Community Orders 3 Imposition of Custodial Sentences 7 Suspended
More information(CRIMINAL) BERNARD CHARLES
1 BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS HIGH COURT (CRIMINAL) JJUST!CE CASE NO. 20 of 2011 BETWEEN: BERNARD CHARLES Appearances: Sarah Benjamin Senior Crown Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions Herbert McKenzie
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 informationNursing and Midwifery Council:
Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee Substantive Hearing 23 February 2018 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ Name of registrant: NMC
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Smith, 2017 NSSC 122. v. Tyrico Thomas Smith
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Smith, 2017 NSSC 122 Date: 20170509 Docket: Cr. No. 449182 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Tyrico Thomas Smith Judge: Heard: Sentencing
More informationThat being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended):
PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 09/11/2017 10/11/2017 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Andrew MACKENZIE GMC reference number: 6134691 Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Conviction / Caution MB ChB 2006
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 informationDirector of Public Prosecutions
Director of Public Prosecutions Prosecutions Under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 This is a slightly revised version of a submission which I made to the joint Oireachtas Committee on child
More informationPROBATION AND PAROLE SENIOR MANAGERS CONFERENCE
PROBATION AND PAROLE SENIOR MANAGERS CONFERENCE Level 6 Christie Corporate Centre 320 Adelaide Street, Brisbane Monday, 16 October, 2006 Judge Marshall Irwin Chief Magistrate I take this opportunity to
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 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 informationPROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND PREVENTION OF SEXUAL OFFENCES (SCOTLAND) ACT 2005
Explanatory Notes to Protection Of Children And Prevention Of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 2005 Chapter 9 Crown Copyright 2005 Explanatory Notes to Acts of the Scottish Parliament are subject to
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 informationLAW REFORM (DECRIMINALIZATION OF SODOMY) ACT
WESTERN AUSTRALIA LAW REFORM (DECRIMINALIZATION OF SODOMY) ACT No. 32 of 1989 AN ACT to amend The Criminal Code and to make certain acts unlawful. [Assented to 19 December 1989] WHEREAS, the Parliament
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 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 informationSentencing remarks of Mr Justice Kerr. The Queen v Aaron Jenkins and Emma Butterworth. Preston Crown Court. 3 March 2016
Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Kerr The Queen v Aaron Jenkins and Emma Butterworth Preston Crown Court 3 March 2016 1. You may both remain seated for the moment. I will deal first with your case, Mr
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF C. v. IRELAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 March 2012
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF C. v. IRELAND (Application no. 24643/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 March 2012 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. C. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the case of
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 informationIntroduction to Sentencing and Corrections
Introduction to Sentencing and Corrections Traditional Objectives of Sentencing retribution, segregation, rehabilitation, and deterrence. Political Perspectives on Sentencing Left Left Wing Wing focus
More informationHEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC
HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC LARKIN, Matthew Peter Registration No: 74917 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2017 Outcome: Erased with Immediate Suspension Matthew Peter LARKIN, a dentist, BDS Lpool 1998
More informationCRIMINAL LITIGATION PRE-COURSE MATERIALS
Legal Practice Course 2014-2015 CRIMINAL LITIGATION PRE-COURSE MATERIALS Copyright Bristol Institute of Legal Practice, UWE AN INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL LITIGATION 1. Introduction: You will be studying
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 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 informationFrancis Burt Law Education Programme
CONTEMPORARY ISSUE CENTERING ON JUSTICE, JUDICIAL PROCESS AND LEGAL POWER: MANDATORY SENTENCING STUDENT PRE-VISIT RESOURCE In your Politics and Law course you are expected to study one contemporary issue.
More informationFraud, bribery and money laundering: corporate offenders Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Fraud, bribery and money laundering: corporate offenders Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE 2 Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering: Corporate Offenders Definitive Guideline Applicability of guideline
More informationLEVEL 6 - UNIT 18 CRIMINAL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2015
LEVEL 6 - UNIT 18 CRIMINAL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2015 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points
More information