Maney v R

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appellants, Jason Rex Thomas Maney and his mother, Matira Deborah Maney, appealed their sentences, which were imposed by the District Court. The Maneys were each convicted on a single charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice and sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment. The appeal concerned the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The Maneys' counsel submitted that the District Court Judge had applied the wrong starting point for their sentencing, and that the resulting sentences were excessive. The Crown argued that the sentences were within the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal found that the District Court Judge had applied an inappropriate starting point for the Maneys’ sentencing. The Court found that the starting point of two years and three months was too high and did not reflect the Maneys' culpability or the fact that the planned interference had not come to fruition. The Court found that the sentences imposed were excessive and quashed the sentences, substituting sentences of two years’ imprisonment. The Court agreed with the sentencing Judge and the appellants’ counsel that a non-custodial sentence was not appropriate in this case.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, quashed the sentences imposed by the District Court, and substituted sentences of two years’ imprisonment for each of the Maneys. The Court held that the sentences imposed by the District Court were excessive and did not reflect the Maneys' culpability or the fact that the planned interference had not come to fruition. The Court found that the starting point applied by the District Court was too high and did not take into account the Maneys' personal circumstances or the fact that the intended outcome of the offending had not been achieved. The Court of Appeal's decision highlights the importance of applying an appropriate starting point for sentencing and taking into account the specific circumstances of each case.