Booth v R

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 10/2016
[2016] NZSC 43

BETWEEN	EDWARD THOMAS BOOTH Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	A J Bailey for Applicant K S Grau and K A Courteney for Respondent
Judgment:	27 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted (Booth v R [2015] NZCA 603).
BThe approved question is whether the sentencing Judge was correct to structure the appellant’s sentence in the way that he did, particularly as that sentence structure means that the time that the appellant spent on remand does not count towards his total period of imprisonment served or for parole eligibility purposes.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Booth v R was decided by Justices William Young, Glazebrook, and Arnold. The applicant, Edward Thomas Booth, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for drug trafficking. The central issue in this appeal was the structure of the sentence imposed on the applicant, which determined that the time spent on remand would not count towards his total imprisonment period or for parole eligibility.

The legal question that the court had to address was whether the sentencing judge correctly structured the sentence in a manner that excluded the time spent on remand from the total imprisonment period and parole eligibility. The court needed to consider whether this approach was consistent with the principles of sentencing and whether it adhered to the relevant statutory provisions.

The court, in its judgment, granted the application for leave to appeal and approved the question for review. It concluded that the sentencing judge's approach was incorrect because it did not appropriately consider the time spent on remand in the calculation of the total imprisonment period and parole eligibility. This decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the established principles of sentencing. The court determined that the time on remand should be counted for these purposes.

As a result of this decision, the case was remitted to the sentencing judge to reconsider the sentence with the correct application of the law. This ensures that the applicant’s time on remand is properly accounted for in determining his total imprisonment period and eligibility for parole.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established