Nottingham v R

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER IN [2014] NZHC 550 PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANTS IN [2014] NZHC 550 AND [2014] NZHC 1848 REMAINS
IN FORCE.

NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER IN [2018] NZDC 15368 PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF T, C, H, B AND M REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 83/2019
[2020] NZSC 23

BETWEEN	DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person C A Brook for Respondent
Judgment:	20 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe judgment of 12 December 2019 (Nottingham v R [2019] NZSC 144) is recalled and leave to appeal is granted in relation to the appeal against sentence.

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention in circumstances where the offender had already served a period of home detention in relation to the offending.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks a recall of our judgment of 12 December 2019[1] dismissing his application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal.[2]
[1]Nottingham v R [2019] NZSC 144.
[2]Nottingham v R [2019] NZCA 344 (Wild, Thomas and Muir JJ).
Nothing has been advanced which would warrant a recall of our decision not to grant leave to appeal in relation to conviction. The application for recall in that respect is in substance primarily an attempt to re‑argue the application for leave.
Having had the benefit of further submissions from both parties on the question of the correct approach to sentence, we agree with the applicant that this aspect of the proposed appeal raises a question of general principle.[3] The judgment is recalled and leave to appeal is granted on the question of whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention in circumstances where the offender had already served a period of home detention in relation to the offending.
[3]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2).

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand recently heard an appeal by Dermot Gregory Nottingham against a decision of the Court of Appeal that had determined his sentence. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed Nottingham's appeal against his sentence, which included a maximum period of home detention, given that Nottingham had already served a period of home detention in relation to the same criminal conduct. Nottingham sought a recall of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dismissing his application for leave to appeal, arguing that the Court of Appeal had erred in imposing the maximum period of home detention.

The legal issue at the heart of this case was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in imposing the maximum period of home detention on Nottingham, given that he had already served a period of home detention for the same criminal conduct. The Supreme Court found that the question of the correct approach to sentencing in such circumstances raises a matter of general principle, and thus, it warranted granting leave to appeal. The Court recalled its earlier judgment and granted leave to appeal specifically on the question of the appropriateness of the maximum period of home detention imposed by the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court determined that the appeal raised a question of general principle concerning the appropriate approach to sentencing where an offender had already served a period of home detention for the same criminal conduct. In light of this, the Court recalled its earlier judgment dismissing Nottingham's application for leave to appeal, and granted leave to appeal on this specific issue. The Court recognised that the matter involved a significant legal principle that required further examination and clarification.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were to recall the earlier judgment dismissing Nottingham's application for leave to appeal and to grant leave to appeal specifically on the question of whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention in circumstances where the offender had already served a period of home detention in relation to the offending.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established