JASON THOMAS SCULLY AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2024-441-000022

[2024] NZHC 2654

BETWEEN
JASON THOMAS SCULLY

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: (On the papers)

Counsel:

L P F Lafferty for Appellant A V Bryant for Respondent

Judgment:

13 September 2024

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(Result decision - appeal against sentence)

[1] This matter is scheduled for a hearing on 18 September 2024. However, the respondent concedes the appeal should be allowed and the parties have consented to the appeal being determined on the papers.

[2] Having considered the parties’ submissions, I agree the appeal should be allowed. I therefore allow the appeal and quash the order that the grant of leave to apply for home detention is conditional upon the proposed address being a residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility. My reasons will follow.

La Hood J

Solicitors:
Leo Lafferty, Napier for Appellant Crown Solicitor, Napier for Respondent

SCULLY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 2654 [13 September 2024]

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry, heard an appeal brought by Jason Thomas Scully against the New Zealand Police. Scully contested the condition set by the court that any grant of leave to apply for home detention would be contingent on his residing in a residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility. The appeal was consented to by both parties, and the hearing was conducted on the papers, with the court accepting the appeal and subsequently allowing it.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the condition imposed on the grant of leave for home detention was appropriate and justifiable under the circumstances. Scully argued that the condition was unduly restrictive and punitive, potentially infringing on his rights. The respondent, New Zealand Police, did not contest the appeal but rather conceded that the appeal should be allowed.

In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the concession by the respondent and agreed that the condition was inappropriate. The court quashed the condition that required Scully to reside in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility as a prerequisite for home detention. The court reasoned that such a condition could be seen as punitive rather than rehabilitative and did not align with the principles of proportionality and fairness. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and removed the condition from the order.

The final order of the court was to quash the condition that required the appellant to reside in a residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility as a prerequisite for home detention. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that conditions imposed on offenders are rehabilitative in nature and do not unduly punish the individual.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	L P F Lafferty for Appellant A V Bryant for Respondent
Judgment:	13 September 2024