Peter Miles Davies v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 83/2007
[2008] NZSC 4

BETWEENPETER MILES DAVIES

Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Court:Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:G S M McDonald for Appellant

A M Powell for Respondent

Judgment:15 February 2008

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal ]2007] NZCA 484 is granted.
BThe approved ground of appeal is:
Whether s 32(5) of the Sentencing Act 2002 prevents the award of reparation to compensate for loss of earnings not compensable under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.

REASONS
[1] Leave to appeal is not granted in respect of the ground relating to s 317(1) of the 2001 Act which does not raise a truly arguable point.
Solicitors:
DLA Phillips Fox, Wellington for Appellant
Crown Law, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an appeal by Peter Miles Davies against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The primary issue before the court was whether Section 32(5) of the Sentencing Act 2002 precluded the awarding of reparation to compensate for lost earnings that were not compensable under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001. The appeal raised questions about the extent to which the courts can consider compensation under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act when determining reparation under the Sentencing Act.

The court examined the statutory language and the legislative history of both the Sentencing Act and the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. It considered the purpose of the reparation provisions in the Sentencing Act, which is to provide a remedy to the victim for harm suffered as a result of the offence. The court also noted the intent behind the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, which is to provide a scheme of compensation for personal injury. The court concluded that the two Acts were not mutually exclusive and that reparation could be awarded under the Sentencing Act for losses not covered by the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The court found that Section 32(5) of the Sentencing Act did not exclude the possibility of awarding reparation for loss of earnings that were not compensable under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

As a result, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal on the ground that Section 32(5) of the Sentencing Act does not prevent the award of reparation for loss of earnings not compensable under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The court's decision clarified the interplay between the two Acts and affirmed the court's ability to award reparation for losses not covered by the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established