D J More and F C D More for Appellant in CA393/2018 F E Guy Kidd KC, L C Preston KC and K M Barker for Appellant in CA27/2019 H G de Groot and T J Conder for Appellant in CA645/2020 C A Brook, R K Thomson and T C Didsbury for Respondent in CA393/2018, CA27/2019 and CA645/2020
Judgment:
27 January 2023 at 10.00 am
Reissued:
10 February 2023
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe applications for extensions of time are granted.
B The applications to adduce further evidence are granted.
C The appeals are allowed.
DIn respect of Dickey v R CA393/2018, the sentence of life imprisonment and an MPI of 10 years is quashed and substituted with a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment and an MPI of seven and a half years.
EIn respect of Brown v R CA27/2019, the sentence of life imprisonment and an MPI of 10 years is quashed and substituted with a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment and an MPI of six years.
FIn respect of Epiha v R CA645/2020, the sentence of life imprisonment and an MPI of 10 years is quashed and substituted with a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment and an MPI of seven years.
(b) Section 103(2) of the Sentencing Act [95] (c) Section 104 of the Sentencing Act [99] Section 86E of the Sentencing Act [101] The register of sentencing purposes, principles and other factors [103] Section 7 of the Sentencing Act [104] Section 8 of the Sentencing Act [105] Section 9 of the Sentencing Act [106] Section 86 of the Sentencing Act [108]
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 [110] International instruments [112] Other jurisdictions [124]
Australia [126] United Kingdom [137] Canada [140] New Zealand compared [142]
Manifest injustice [144]
Manifest injustice — s 102 of the Sentencing Act [145] Manifest injustice — s 104 of the Sentencing Act [155] Manifest injustice — third strike sentences [166] Manifest injustice: conclusions [167]
Assessment of Manifest Injustice for Youth Murderers [169]
Youth and manifest injustice [171] The…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Dickey v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Dickey v The King [2023] NZCA 2
Case
[2023] NZCA 2
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This appeal concerns the sentences imposed on three teenagers who were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 10 years. Each appellant argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly unjust. The appeals were heard together by Collins J, who granted extensions of time and leave to adduce further evidence. The appeals were allowed. The sentences of life imprisonment were quashed and substituted with determinate sentences of 15 years’ imprisonment and an MPI of seven and a half years for the first appellant, 12 years’ imprisonment and an MPI of six years for the second appellant, and 13 years’ imprisonment and an MPI of seven years for the third appellant. The Court considered the characteristics of young offenders, the sentencing purposes and principles in the Sentencing Act, and international instruments. The Court concluded that the sentences of life imprisonment imposed on the appellants were manifestly unjust.