IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J
|
|
- Nathaniel Dixon
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC 2235 BETWEEN AND DINH TU DO Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 23 June 2015 Counsel: A Shaw for Appellant S W P Woods for Respondent Judgment: 16 September 2015 JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J Introduction [1] The appellant, Dinh Tu Do, challenges a zero alcohol licence order made against him by Judge Tuohy in the District Court as part of his sentence for driving with excess blood alcohol. 1 Mr Do says that, in the circumstances of his case, the imposition of that part of his sentence breached fundamental principles of criminal law relating to retrospectivity and double jeopardy. Facts [2] Mr Do was stopped by the police in the early hours of Sunday 29 December 2013 whilst driving along the Wellington/Porirua Motorway. Mr Do was breathalysed. Mr Do subsequently elected to have a sample of his blood taken. That sample showed that Mr Do s blood contained 111 milligrams, +/- five, of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Mr Do was charged under s 56(2) of the Land Transport Act 1998 with driving with excess blood alcohol (106 milligrams of alcohol per New Zealand Police v Dinh Tu Do [2015] NZDC DO v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 2235 [16 September 2015]
2 millilitres of blood). Mr Do pleaded guilty to that charge and was convicted on 11 April He was remanded for sentence to 10 June [3] Mr Do has a previous conviction of driving with excess blood alcohol, entered on 16 December [4] Section 65B of the Land Transport Act provides for the imposition of what are known as zero alcohol requirements. Where a person convicted of a drink driving offence 2 has within the previous five years been convicted of a like offence, the Court must make a zero alcohol licence order. Such an order requires the convicted person to apply for a zero alcohol licence when his or her mandatory period of disqualification expires. Such a licence permits that person to drive only when they have no alcohol in their blood. If that person does not obtain such a licence, they are treated as not having a licence. [5] On Mr Do s sentence remand date his lawyer, Mr Shaw, raised with the District Court the applicability of s 65B. Mr Shaw s submission was that s 65B could not apply to Mr Do because Mr Do s previous conviction pre-dated s 65B coming into effect. To apply s 65B to Mr Do, and make him subject to the mandatory requirement to obtain a zero alcohol licence, would Mr Shaw suggested be to give s 65B unlawful retrospective effect. [6] Mr Do s sentencing was therefore deferred. That question of unlawful retrospectivity was ultimately argued before Judge Broadmore on 28 July The Judge found that the application of s 65B to Mr Do would not infringe against principles concerning retrospectivity. 3 The Judge put it this way: [11] The punishment in prospect in this case is the punishment prescribed by the Act for repeat drink driving. Mr Do is not facing punishment for drink driving in October 2011, but for drink driving in December Not for drink driving in the first instance, but for doing it again. The 2011 offence does no more than satisfy the qualifying criteria for sentencing Mr Do for his December 2013 offence. At the time he committed this 2 3 That is, under any of ss 56(1), 56(2), 57(1), 57(2), 57AA, 58(1)(a), 60(1)(a)-(c), 61(1), 61(2) and 62(1)(a). New Zealand Police v Dinh Do DC Wellington CRI , 13 November 2014.
3 offence, the penalty for repeat drink driving was clear: it included the discretionary prospect 4 of an order being made for a zero alcohol licence. [15] It is therefore my opinion that s 65B does not infringe s 7 of the Interpretation Act or any legal principle governing retrospectivity cited to me by Mr Shaw. [7] Mr Do was subsequently sentenced by Judge Tuohy on 11 March 2015 to pay a fine of $750, Court costs of $130 and medical expenses totalling $ Mr Do was also disqualified from driving for eight months and the mandatory order under s 65B, authorising him (as the statute puts it 5 ) to apply for a zero alcohol licence that would have effect for a period of three years from the issue of that licence, was made. [8] Mr Do now appeals against that zero alcohol order, on the grounds that as Mr Shaw had argued before Judge Broadmore it amounts to applying a penalty with an unlawful retrospective effect. Mr Do does not otherwise challenge the sentence imposed on him by Judge Tuohy. Law [9] This appeal engages principles relating to the retrospective application of statute law 6 and, in the criminal context, of double jeopardy. Those principles are closely related, but not the same. They have deep and strong common law roots, and are important ongoing constituents of the common law of New Zealand. In New Zealand they are all now expressed in statute. They are also expressed in international conventions which New Zealand has ratified. [10] The authors of The Law of Human Rights write of the common law position regarding retrospective statute law in the following terms: The prospect is not discretionary. Under s 65B, the order is mandatory. Section 65B(2). At common law, the legal fiction is that judges declare but do not make the law. Hence, even when new law is being made, for example in tort law in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, it is applied in effect retrospectively the first time it is declared. Richard Clayton and Hugh Tomlinson (eds) The Law of Human Rights (2nd ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009) at ch 11: Fair Trial Rights (footnotes omitted).
4 The common law presumes that statutes are not intended to have retrospective effect. As Blackstone observed, if: after an action (indifferent in itself) is committed, the legislator then for the first time declares it to have been a crime, and inflicts a punishment upon the person who has committed it. Here it is impossible that the party could foresee that an action, innocent when it was done, should be afterwards converted to guilt by a subsequent law: he had therefore no cause to abstain from it; and all punishment for not abstaining must of consequence be cruel and unjust. All laws should be therefore made to commence in futuro, and be notified before their commencement; which is implied in the term prescribed. It has therefore been said that: It is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary or distinct implication. This principle is often said to rest on the idea of fairness. As Staughton LJ stressed in a case involving recovery of overpaid social security benefits: the true principle is that Parliament is presumed not to have intended to alter the law applicable to past events and transactions in a manner which is unfair to those concerned in them, unless a contrary intention appears. It has been suggested that the presumption against retrospectivity is an aspect of the principle against doubtful penalization : a person should not be penalised except under clear law. [11] The most general expression of these principles in New Zealand statute law is found in s 7 of the Interpretation Act: 7 Enactments do not have retrospective effect. An enactment does not have retrospective effect. [12] The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) provides, in more specific terms and in the criminal law context: 25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:
5 (g) the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty: 26 Retroactive penalties and double jeopardy (1) No one shall be liable to conviction of any offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence by such person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occurred. (2) No one who has been finally acquitted or convicted of, or pardoned for, an offence shall be tried or punished for it again. [13] The principle reflected in s 25(g) of NZBORA finds specific and strong expression in s 6 of the Sentencing Act 2002: 6 Penal enactments not to have retrospective effect to disadvantage of offender (1) An offender has the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty. (2) Subsection (1) applies despite any other enactment or rule of law. [14] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expresses these principles in arts 14 and 15 in the following terms: Article No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country. Article No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act of omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby. 2. Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was
6 committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations. [15] The commentary in Adams on Criminal Law at SA6.01 and 6.02 reflects the strength of these principles. It does so in the context of s 6 of the Sentencing Act and the principle of retrospectivity, rather than of the principle of double jeopardy. Issues on appeal [16] Mr Shaw submitted that the issues raised by this appeal were: (a) whether s 65B had prospective effect only, making the imposition of the zero alcohol licence order on Mr Do unlawful; and (b) whether the application of s 65B to Mr Do as part of his sentence for his December 2013 offending involved the imposition of a heavier penalty than was available at the time of that offending, in breach of s 6 of the Sentencing Act specifically and the relevant provisions of s 7 of the Interpretation Act, NZBORA and the ICCPR more generally. [17] I acknowledge that is one way of putting those issues. In terms of the principles of retrospectivity and double jeopardy I think, however, that those issues are better put in terms of whether the imposition on Mr Do of the zero alcohol licence condition as part of his sentence for his December 2013 offending: (a) infringed any of the various proscriptions against the retrospective increase of penalties for offences; or (b) exposed Mr Do to double jeopardy in respect of his December 2011 offending. [18] That expression of the issues reflects my conclusion that no issue arises here in terms of the retrospective creation of an offence. That is, there is no issue under either s 26(1) of NZBORA or the first sentence of art 15 of the ICCPR.
7 [19] As for s 7 of the Interpretation Act 1999, the legislation in question is functionally prospective: it concerns the effect of actions that occur after its enactment. The existence of Mr Do s previous offending is necessary for the penalty presently in question to be available in respect of the proscribed conduct. In that respect the legislation has affected Mr Do s expectations as to the significance of his past offending. That effect does not, however, constitute legislation with retrospective effect. Mr Do can be taken to have known of the varied significance of his earlier offending at the time, after the enactment of s 65B, when he reoffended. [20] I address each of the remaining issues in turn. Retrospectivity [21] The appellate courts have, in cases such as R v Poumako, 8 R v Pora 9 and R v Mist, 10 considered retrospectivity in criminal statutes where the available penalty for an offence has been varied between the time the offence was committed and the time the offender was convicted or sentenced. Whilst important for their discussion of the principles involved, those cases are not therefore of direct assistance here. Nor is the Court of Appeal decision in Belcher v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. 11 The issue there was the imposition of what was in effect a penalty (an extended supervision order) on a previously punished offender, without the offender having committed any subsequent offence. [22] Mr Shaw also referred me to the decision of the House of Lords in R (Uttley) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 12 and its discussion of the earlier judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Welch v United Kingdom. 13 Again, both those cases concerned a question of the retrospective imposition of a penalty where the penalty had changed from the time of the relevant offending to the time of its imposition. Moreover, an important issue in both cases was whether the relevant sanction was a criminal penalty R v Poumako [2000] 2 NZLR 695 (CA). R v Pora [2001] 2 NZLR 37 (CA). R v Mist [2005] NZSC 77, [2006] 3 NZLR 145. Belcher v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2007] 1 NZLR 507, (2006) 22 CRNZ 787 (CA). R (Uttley) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 38, [2004] 1 WLR Welch v United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 247 (ECHR).
8 [23] It was not argued before me that the imposition of the mandatory zero alcohol licence order did not constitute a punishment, that is a criminal penalty, whether as regards the earlier or the later drink driving offending. That point is, I think, arguable. 14 But, given the way this appeal was argued, I will assume such an order is a punishment. [24] Mr Shaw placed some reliance on what he argued were explicit provisions in the Land Transport Act providing for retrospective effect. He referred me to ss 32(5), 56(5), 57A(5), 58(4), 60(4), 61(3C), 65(5), 91A and 103(2)(d)(iv). Mr Shaw s submission was that the absence of such an explicit provision giving, what he described as, retrospective effect to s 65B, was evidence of Parliament s intention that it should have prospective effect only. [25] Those provisions do not, in my view, support that proposition. All of them, other than s 91A, simply reflect the change over time in the statutory provisions relating to land transport. They make equivalent offences under earlier legislation offences for the purposes of the current legislation, the Land Transport Act Section 91A defines the term traffic offence where it appears in the definition of the term traffic fine, by reference to offences against various statutes dealing with land transport. It does so in the context of the scheme found in s 91A and following whereby what are called driver licence stop orders may be made where holders of driver licences have not paid traffic fines. [26] During the hearing of Mr Do s appeal I discussed with counsel the relevance of the fact that the so-called three strikes regime specifically provides that qualifying earlier offences are limited to those which were committed after the introduction of that regime. That Parliament chose to legislate in that way does not, in my view, mean that s 65B must be interpreted in a similar way. The scheme of the three strikes regime is different, and involves a formal categorisation of qualifying offences as such, a feature which is not present here. It may have been for that reason that Parliament chose the approach it did. 14 See Belcher v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, above n 11, at [35], and A Butler and P Butler The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: A Commentary (2nd ed, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2015) at [ ] [ ].
9 [27] For the police, Mr Woods referred me to several cases where issues of retrospectivity have been addressed in the context of s 65A of the Land Transport Act, which introduced the alcohol interlock device order regime. In those cases the issue related to the applicability of s 6 of the Sentencing Act, and whether an alcohol interlock device order was a lesser penalty than mandatory disqualification under s 65. Thus, in Lose v R the Court of Appeal, 15 and in Nanai v Police the High Court, 16 concluded that an alcohol interlock licence disqualification was, in the statutory scheme, a lesser penalty. It was therefore able to be imposed where relevant drink driving offending had been committed, but not sentenced, prior to s 65A coming into force. That is not the issue here. Such cases, therefore, also do not assist. [28] The question of the retrospective application of s 65B is addressed in Becroft and Hall s Transport Law. There the following view is expressed: 17 LTA65B.4 Retrospective application The Act is silent as to this. The inserted provisions commenced on 10 September Recourse needs to be had to s 6 of the Sentencing Act, which provides that where penalty is varied between the time of the commission of the offence and sentencing, the offender is entitled to the benefit of the lesser penalty. Although the provisions of s 65B are mandatory, it is suggested that best practice would be to comply with s 6 and refrain from imposing the mandatory zero alcohol requirements where offending is before 10 September [29] It is clear, however, that there the offending before 10 September 2012 is being referred to is the later offending which is being sentenced, rather than the earlier offending which affects the sentence available. That expression of the principle does not therefore go beyond the reasoning in the case law discussed above. [30] In the absence of any authority directly on point, I consider the question by reference to the principles involved Lose v R [2014] NZCA 368. Nanai v Police [2013] NZHC 155. Andrew J Becroft and Geoffrey G Hall Becroft and Hall s Transport Law (looseleaf ed, LexisNexis, Wellington).
10 [31] In my view the mandatory imposition of the zero alcohol licence order on Mr Do was not contrary to s 6 of the Sentencing Act, s 25(g) of NZBORA or the second and third sentences of art 15(1) of the ICCPR. 18 The penalty for the offence Mr Do committed on Sunday 29 December 2013 had not been varied in any way between that date and the date of his sentencing by Judge Tuohy on 11 March [32] It had not been increased, the effect of which s 6 would have protected Mr Do from. Nor had it been decreased, the benefit of which s 6 would have entitled Mr Do to. At the time at which Mr Do s conduct gave rise to liability for the offence and attendant consequences the law mandated the imposition of a zero alcohol licence. In terms of Blackstone s expression of the general principle cited at [10], Mr Do could have foreseen the imposition of the zero alcohol licence. Those provisions are not, therefore, engaged by this appeal. Double jeopardy [33] The doctrines of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict prevent, subject to their terms, trial and conviction for an offence where, put simply, the person charged has previously been tried for, and acquitted or convicted of that offence as the case may be. That is not the assertion here. It is not argued that Mr Do was tried or convicted again for his 2011 offending. [34] The issue here is the potential for double jeopardy in the fundamental sense: punishment again for an offence that has already been punished, which is the fundamental concern underpinning those doctrines. In other words, did the mandatory imposition of the zero alcohol licence order on Mr Do on 15 July punish him again for the offence he had committed in 2011? In answering that question s 26(2) of NZBORA ([12] above) and art 14(7) of the ICCPR ([14] above) are engaged. 18 See above at [12] and [14].
11 [35] The law has long recognised that past conviction history may be a relevant consideration when sentencing current offending. In Casey v R the Court of Appeal explained matters in the following terms: 19 The Court should always be careful to see that a sentence of a prisoner who has been previously convicted is not increased merely because of those previous convictions. If a sentence were increased merely on that ground it would result in the prisoner being, in effect, sentenced again for an offence which he has already expiated. We agree that the sentence passed ought to bear some relation to the intrinsic nature of the offence and gravity of the crime. But it by no means follows that the previous convictions must be ignored. It is necessary to take them into consideration, because the character of the offender frequently affects the question of the nature and gravity of the crime, and a prisoner s previous convictions are involved in the question of his character. Further, the previous convictions of a prisoner may indicate a predilection to commit the particular type of offence of which he is convicted, in which case it is the duty of the Court, for the protection of the public, to take them into consideration and lengthen the period of confinement accordingly. We think that the learned Solicitor-General put the matter fairly and accurately when he submitted that the previous convictions may be looked at for the purpose of establishing the prisoner s character and assisting to determine the punishment that is appropriate to the case of a man of that character for the particular offence for which he is to be sentenced. [36] Adams on Criminal Law, at SA9.15 summarises the position as follows: 20 This principle means that the current offence is the primary consideration in sentencing, but previous convictions are taken into account in three ways: as an indicator of character and culpability; because they show the need for a greater deterrent response; and as an indicator of risk of reoffending. [37] Section 9(1)(j) of the Sentencing Act 2002 gives statutory recognition to that principle. Section 9(1) constitutes a list of aggravating factors that must be taken into account by a sentencing judge to the extent that they are applicable in the case. Section 9(1)(j) refers to: The number, seriousness, date, relevance, and nature of any previous convictions of the offender and of any convictions for which the offender is being sentenced or otherwise dealt with at the same time. [38] In Beckham v R the Court of Appeal put it this way: 21 [84] The rationale for uplifting a prisoner s sentence to take into account prior criminal history has been explained by this Court in R v Casey and in Casey v R [1931] NZLR 594 at 597. Bruce Robertson (ed) Adams on Criminal Law (looseleaf ed, Brookers) at [SA9.15]. Beckham v R [2012] NZCA 290.
12 R v Ward. As Sir Michael Myers CJ explained in Casey, the Court must be careful to see that a sentence of a person who has been previously convicted is not increased merely by reason of those previous convictions. If this occurred, it would result in the prisoner being sentenced again for an offence which he had already expiated. Issues of deterrence and, in some cases, protection of the public may require an uplift for previous offending. Similarly, previous convictions may bear on the issue of character. [39] In those terms an uplift for the purpose of deterrence or protection of the public is not a case of punishing a person again for an offence which has already been expiated. In my view, the provisions of s 65B are a reasonably orthodox application of those principles. [40] The explanatory note to the legislation which introduced ss 65A and 65B of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2011 stated that the purposes of these provisions was to: toughen sanctions for serious or repeat driving offenders by Introducing a zero BAC limit for repeat drink drivers (2 or more convictions within a 5-year period), which will apply for 3 years from the date when the driver s licence disqualification period ends and a new licence is obtained; [41] What is referred to as the zero BAC limit is effected by s 65B s mandatory zero alcohol licence regime. [42] Repeat drink-driving offending clearly engages the proposition that a greater, particular, deterrent response may be called for. More significantly in my view, given the risks to the general public from drink-driving offending, a zero alcohol licence order provides additional protection to the public from the risks of such offending. [43] I am therefore satisfied that the imposition of the zero alcohol licence condition on Mr Do did not breach the prohibition on double punishment found in either the common law or s 26(2) of NZBORA. I am likewise satisfied that an interpretation of s 65B of the type called for by Mr Do was not required by any rule of the common law or by the interpretative mandate found in s 6 of NZBORA.
13 [44] Mr Do s appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Clifford J Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Wellington for Respondent
IN 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 informationCriminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010
Digest No. 1819 Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010 Date of Introduction: 15 November 2010 Portfolio: Select Committee: Published: 18 November 2010 by John McSoriley BA LL.B, Barrister,
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 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 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 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 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI 2014-004-000413 [2014] NZHC 3294 BETWEEN AND CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 16 December 2014 Appearances:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND 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 informationRoad Traffic Offenders (Surrender of Driving Licences Etc) Bill
Road Traffic Offenders (Surrender of Driving Licences Etc) Bill EXPLANATORY NOTES Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Department for Transport with the consent of Michael Tomlinson, the Member
More informationDAVID KEITH SILBY Applicant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent. A J Ewing for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA428/2016 [2016] NZCA 592 BETWEEN AND DAVID KEITH SILBY Applicant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 18 October 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Brewer
More informationDomestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [HL]
[AS AMENDED IN STANDING COMMITTEE E] CONTENTS PART 1 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ETC Amendments to Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 1 Breach of non-molestation order to be a criminal offence 2 Additional considerations
More informationJUDGMENT. R v Varma (Respondent)
Michaelmas Term [2012] UKSC 42 On appeal from: [2010] EWCA Crim 1575 JUDGMENT R v Varma (Respondent) before Lord Phillips Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Dyson Lord Reed JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 10 October 2012 Heard
More informationDRAFT FOR CONSULTATION
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION Member s Bill Explanatory note General policy statement The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the low-level alcohol limit imposed in December 014. Since the alcohol breath and blood
More informationRe: Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2014
The Research Director Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 By email: lacsc@parliament.qld.gov.au 6 June 2014 Dear Colleague, Re: Criminal Law Amendment
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) High Court Ref. No: 16424 Magistrate s Court Case No: 205/16 Magistrate s Court Ref. No.: 26/2016 In the matter between: THE STATE
More informationBail Amendment Bill 2012
Bail Amendment Bill 2012 4 May 2012 Attorney-General Bail Amendment Bill 2012 PCO15616 (v6.2) Our Ref: ATT395/171 1. I have reviewed this Bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
More informationYouth Justice in New Zealand: Principles and Procedures
Youth Justice in New Zealand: Principles and Procedures 22 July 2009 SUMMARY The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 sets out the principles and procedures that apply when a child (aged
More informationLEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: FREEDOM CAMPING BILL
Freedom Camping Bill 10 May 2011 ATTORNEY-GENERAL LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: FREEDOM CAMPING BILL 1. We have considered whether the Freedom Camping Bill (PCO
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 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 informationCriminal Law: Implications after road death or injury
InformatIon Handbook 1 Criminal Law: Implications after road death or injury Produced in partnership with www.emsleys.co.uk Criminal Law: Implications after road death or injury CONTENTS: Introduction..............................................................3
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 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 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 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 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 informationLaw Commission consultation on the Sentencing Code Law Society response
Law Commission consultation on the Sentencing Code Law Society response January 2018 The Law Society 2018 Page 1 of 12 Introduction The Law Society of England and Wales ( The Society ) is the professional
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 informationADULT COURT PRONOUNCEMENT CARDS
ADULT COURT PRONOUNCEMENT CARDS Contents Sentencing: 1 Criminal behaviour order 1 Individual support order 2 Community order 3 Custodial sentence 7 Deferment of sentence 9 Discharge absolute 10 Discharge
More informationJury Amendment Act 2010 No 55
New South Wales Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 Schedule 1 Amendment of Jury Act 1977 No 18 3 Schedule 2 Amendment of Jury Regulation 2004 22 New South Wales Act No 55, 2010 An Act to amend
More informationSentencing law in England and Wales Legislation currently in force. Part 5 Post-sentencing matters
Sentencing law in England and Wales Legislation currently in force Part 5 Post-sentencing matters 9 October 2015 Law Commission: Sentencing law in England and Wales Legislation currently in force Part
More informationROAD SAFETY ACT 2006
ROAD SAFETY ACT 2006 EXPLANATORY NOTES INTRODUCTION 1. These explanatory notes relate to the Road Safety Act 2006 (c.49) which received Royal Assent on 8 th November 2006. They have been prepared by the
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 9.2.2007 COM(2007) 51 final 2007/0022 (COD) Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of the environment
More informationSecond Session Eleventh Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Act No. 9 of 2017
Legal Supplement Part A to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 56, No. 82, 7th August, 2017 Second Session Eleventh Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Act No.
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 informationChapter 381. Probation Act Certified on: / /20.
Chapter 381. Probation Act 1979. Certified on: / /20. INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Chapter 381. Probation Act 1979. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART I PRELIMINARY. 1. Compliance with Constitutional
More informationCRIMINAL CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA (KZ-1) GENERAL PART. Chapter One FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS. Imposition of Criminal Liability Article 1
CRIMINAL CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA (KZ-1) GENERAL PART Chapter One FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS Imposition of Criminal Liability Article 1 (1) Criminal liability in the Republic of Slovenia may be imposed
More informationSubstantial Security Holder Disclosure. Discussion Document
Substantial Security Holder Disclosure Discussion Document November 2002 Table of Contents SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS FOR SUBMISSION...3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION...5 Process...5 Official Information and Privacy
More informationRoad Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 No 99
New South Wales Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 No 99 Contents Page Part 1 Preliminary 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Objects of Act 2 4 Definitions 3 5 Application of Commonwealth Acts
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION No of 2010 ROADS CORPORATION (VICROADS) ---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION Not Restricted No. 4733 of 2010 TERASOF PTY LTD (ACN 104 761 248) and THE VAIS FAMILY INVESTMENT COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 102 377 766) Plaintiffs
More informationMARINE (BOATING SAFETY ALCOHOL AND DRUGS) ACT 1991 No. 80
MARINE (BOATING SAFETY ALCOHOL AND DRUGS) ACT 1991 No. 80 TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Definitions 4. Application of Act 5. Prescribed concentrations of alcohol
More information2013 Bill 32. First Session, 28th Legislature, 62 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 32 ENHANCING SAFETY ON ALBERTA ROADS ACT
2013 Bill 32 First Session, 28th Legislature, 62 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 32 ENHANCING SAFETY ON ALBERTA ROADS ACT THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION First Reading.......................................................
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 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 informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF FRANZ FISCHER v. AUSTRIA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF FRANZ FISCHER v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 37950/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC Plaintiff. THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND First Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2016-404-000544 [2016] NZHC 2237 UNDER THE Judicature Amendment Act 1972, Section 4 BETWEEN AND KARL NUKU Plaintiff THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND
More 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 informationINTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON THE DEATH PENALTY
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON THE DEATH PENALTY Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 2 GENERAL HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES... 1 3 ABOLITION... 2 4 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES FAVOURING ABOLITION... 3 5 NON-USE...
More informationEnhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill (PCO 19557/14.0) Our Ref: ATT395/252
2 10 June 2016 Attorney-General Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill (PCO 19557/14.0) Our Ref: ATT395/252 1. We have reviewed this Bill for consistency with the New Zealand
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 informationVOLUNTARY REGISTER OF DRIVING INSTRUCTORS GOVERNING POLICY
VOLUNTARY REGISTER OF DRIVING INSTRUCTORS GOVERNING POLICY 1 Introduction 1.1 In December 2014, the States approved the introduction of a mandatory Register of Driving Instructors, and the introduction
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 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 informationASSAULTS ON EMERGENCY WORKERS (OFFENCES) BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES
ASSAULTS ON EMERGENCY WORKERS (OFFENCES) BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES What these notes do These Explanatory tes relate to the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill as brought from the House. These Explanatory
More informationAN ACT. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio:
(131st General Assembly) (Amended Substitute Senate Bill Number 97) AN ACT To amend sections 2152.17, 2901.08, 2923.14, 2929.13, 2929.14, 2929.20, 2929.201, 2941.141, 2941.144, 2941.145, 2941.146, and
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PAPAKURA CRI [2016] NZDC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor. CAMERON JASON PANTON Defendant
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT PAPAKURA CRI-2016-055-000928 [2016] NZDC 25117 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v CAMERON JASON PANTON Defendant Hearing: 7 December 2016 Appearances:
More informationIN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. Judgment of 27 May 2008 No. 8-П
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Judgment of 27 May 2008 No. 8-П in the case concerning the review of constitutionality of the provisions of Section
More informationENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES AND PENALTIES ACT 1989 No. ISO
ENVIRONMENTAL OFFENCES AND PENALTIES ACT 1989 No. ISO NEW SOUTH WALES TABLE OF PROVISIONS 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Object of the Act 4. Definitions PART 1 - PRELIMINARY PART 2 - OFFENCES 5. Disposal
More informationDESMOND WILLIAM COOK Appellant. Applicant in person K R A Muirhead for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA589/2017 [2018] NZCA 57 BETWEEN AND DESMOND WILLIAM COOK Appellant HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 19 March 2018 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Kós P,
More informationNOTICE 1544 OF 2008 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT PUBLICATION FOR COMMENTS: TRANSPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND RELATED MATTERS GENERAL AMENDMENT BILL, 2009
STAATSKOERANT. 19 DESEMBER 2008 No.31715 29 NOTICE 1544 OF 2008 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT PUBLICATION FOR COMMENTS: TRANSPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND RELATED MATTERS GENERAL AMENDMENT BILL, 2009 The above-mentioned
More informationBail (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Act 2016
Bail (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Act 2016 Public Act 2016 No 83 Date of assent 15 November 2016 Commencement see section 2 Contents Page 1 Title 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Principal Act 2 Definitions
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 informationNumber 23 of 2006 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. 2. Regulations to give effect to acts of European Communities.
Section 1. Definitions. Number 23 of 2006 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 2006 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 2. Regulations to give effect to acts of European Communities. 3. Prohibition on holding mobile phone by driver of
More informationNumber 11 of 2006 CRIMINAL LAW (INSANITY) ACT 2006 REVISED. Updated to 3 November 2014
Number 11 of CRIMINAL LAW (INSANITY) ACT REVISED Updated to 3 November 2014 This Revised Act is an administrative consolidation of the. It is prepared by the Law Reform Commission in accordance with its
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 informationChapter 22:05 EXCHANGE CONTROL ACT Acts 62/1964, 8/1967, 15/1970, 43/1975, 42/1977 (s. 3), 22/2001, 14/2002; R.G.N 1135/1975. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Chapter 22:05 EXCHANGE CONTROL ACT Acts 62/1964, 8/1967, 15/1970, 43/1975, 42/1977 (s. 3), 22/2001, 14/2002; R.G.N 1135/1975. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Short title. 2. Regulatory powers of the
More informationTHE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, FONTANA, SCHWANK, WILLIAMS, WHITE AND HAYWOOD, AUGUST 29, 2017 AN ACT
PRINTER'S NO. 1 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. Session of 01 INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, FONTANA, SCHWANK, WILLIAMS, WHITE AND HAYWOOD, AUGUST, 01 REFERRED TO JUDICIARY, AUGUST, 01 AN
More informationBefore the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. CB24832
Before the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. CB24832 Licensed Building Practitioner: Roshan Anthony (the Respondent) Licence Number: BP 101349 Licence(s) Held: Carpentry Decision of the Board
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL OF THE
Privy Council Appeal No. 1 of 1999 Dharmarajen Sabapathee Appellant v. The State Respondent FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS --------------- JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY
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 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC Appellant. DENNIS MAX HAUNUI Respondent.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2015-409-63 [2015] NZHC 2456 BETWEEN AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Appellant DENNIS MAX HAUNUI Respondent CRI-2015-485-52 BETWEEN AND PATRICK MILLER
More informationholder of a probationary driving licence is convicted under this
(2) The court shall order particulars of any conviction under this section to be endorsed on any driving licence held by the person convicted. (4) A person convicted under this section shall be disqualified
More informationImmigration Bill [AS AMENDED IN PUBLIC BILL COMMITTEE] CONTENTS PART 1
[AS AMENDED IN PUBLIC BILL COMMITTEE] CONTENTS PART 1 LABOUR MARKET AND ILLEGAL WORKING Director of Labour Market Enforcement 1 Director of Labour Market Enforcement 2 Labour market enforcement strategy
More informationSENTENCING REFORM FAQS
1 Rationale for the reforms 1. Why has the NSW Government passed these sentencing reforms? These reforms are built primarily upon recommendations made by the NSW Law Reform Commission in its Report 139
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Reportable Case No: 409/2015 MATHEWS SIPHO LELAKA APPELLANT And THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Lelaka v The State (409/15)
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 informationOfficial Journal of the European Union. (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES
11.3.2016 L 65/1 I (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/343 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence
More informationElectoral Amendment Bill
Electoral Amendment Bill 5 February 2009 Attorney-General Electoral Amendment Bill: Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Our Ref: ATT395/95 1. I have reviewed the Electoral Amendment
More informationJUDGMENT. R v Sally Lane and John Letts (AB and CD) (Appellants)
REPORTING RESTRICTIONS APPLY TO THIS CASE Trinity Term [2018] UKSC 36 On appeal from: [2017] EWCA Crim 129 JUDGMENT R v Sally Lane and John Letts (AB and CD) (Appellants) before Lady Hale, President Lord
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 informationThe Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Incorporated. The Real Estate Agents Act 2008 Exemption Request:
JUNE 2016 RESPONSE OF: The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Incorporated ON The Real Estate Agents Act 2008 Exemption Request: Consultation Material for the New Zealand Institute of Forestry Te Pūtahi
More informationA complaint to the Building Practitioners Board under section 315. [The Respondent], Licensed Building Practitioner No.
Before the Building Practitioners Board At Auckland BPB Complaint No. C2-01180 Under the Building Act 2004 (the Act) IN THE MATTER OF AGAINST A complaint to the Building Practitioners Board under section
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA386/2011 [2011] NZCA 610. Applicant. MANA COACH SERVICES LTD Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA386/2011 [2011] NZCA 610 BETWEEN AND BEATRICE KATZ Applicant MANA COACH SERVICES LTD Respondent Hearing: 20 October 2011 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Glazebrook, Arnold
More informationTHE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED
THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ARRESTED A REVIEW OF THE LAW IN NORTHERN IRELAND November 2004 ISBN 1 903681 50 2 Copyright Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Temple Court, 39 North Street Belfast
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 informationPrivate International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Act 2017
2017 Public Act 2017 No 44 Date of assent 4 December 2017 Commencement see section 2 Contents Page 1 Title 2 2 Commencement 2 Part 1 Preliminary provisions 3 Purpose 2 4 Transitional, savings, and related
More informationBefore the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. C
Before the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. C2-01904 Licensed Building Practitioner: Rajendra Krishna (the Respondent) Licence Number: BP 112034 Licence(s) Held: Carpentry Decision of the
More informationCrown Minerals Amendment Bill
Government Bill As reported from the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee Recommendation Commentary The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has examined the and recommends
More informationMAGISTRATES COURT SENTENCING GUIDELINES. SENTENCING COUNCIL UPDATE 7 March 2012
MAGISTRATES COURT SENTENCING GUIDELINES SENTENCING COUNCIL UPDATE 7 March 2012 This update from the Sentencing Council provides new material following publication of the definitive guideline for allocation,
More informationOFFENDER REHABILITATION BILL HUMAN RIGHTS MEMORANDUM
OFFENDER REHABILITATION BILL HUMAN RIGHTS MEMORANDUM Introduction 1. This Memorandum relates to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill, and addresses issues arising in relation to the European Convention on
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR First Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2013-404-4141 [2015] NZHC 1706 BETWEEN ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR First Applicant HINEMANU NGARONOA, SANDRA WILDE, KIRSTY OLIVIA FENSOM and CLAIRE THRUPP
More informationProposal. Budget sensitive. In confidence. Office of the Minister of Justice. Chair. Cabinet Social Policy Committee REFORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW
Budget sensitive In confidence Office of the Minister of Justice Chair Cabinet Social Policy Committee REFORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW Paper Three: Prosecuting family violence Proposal 1. This paper is the
More informationJUSTICES CLERKS SOCIETY SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (CHIEF MAGISTRATE)
Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) JUSTICES CLERKS SOCIETY SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (CHIEF MAGISTRATE) Youth Court Jurisdiction The Modern Approach July 2015 This is the joint advice of the Justices'
More informationIndex. Abbreviations/meanings
Road Trip - an abbreviated guide to Road Transport Legislation in New South Wales Author: Darren Robinson Lawyer, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Version 13.1 [July 2013] Index 2-7
More informationEXTRADITION ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Application of Act
EXTRADITION ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Application of Act SECTION 1. Power to apply Act by order. 2. Application of Act to Commonwealth countries. Restrictions on surrender of fugitives 3. Restrictions
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 informationThe Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act Update. Geoffrey Shannon INTRODUCTION. Solicitor.
Art6 1/16/06 6:56 PM Page 23 The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 Update Geoffrey Shannon Solicitor. T he Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 was enacted in September 2005 and will have
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC 2357 THE QUEEN FABIAN JESSIE MIKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-009-001924 [2013] NZHC 2357 THE QUEEN v Hearing: 10 September 2013 FABIAN JESSIE MIKA Appearances: P J Shamy and MAJ Elliott for Crown J
More information