R v Luce

In the case of R v Luce, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand reviewed the sentence imposed on Allen Luce, who had been found guilty of two sexual offences against young girls. The trial judge had sentenced Luce to seven years imprisonment, consisting of five and a half years for sexually violating a three-year-old girl and one and a half years for indecently assaulting a nine-year-old girl, with a non-parole period of four years. Luce appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive, that the trial judge failed to consider his poor health and short life expectancy, and that the non-parole period was incorrectly calculated.

The Court of Appeal considered the arguments presented by both parties. They found that the trial judge's decision to impose a five and a half-year sentence for the sexual violation and a one and a half-year sentence for the indecent assault was within the appropriate range. However, the Court found that the trial judge should have considered Luce's poor health and short life expectancy when determining the appropriate sentence. Given Luce's extremely poor health and short life expectancy, the Court of Appeal determined that the sentence should be reduced by two years, resulting in an effective sentence of five years imprisonment.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal noted that the non-parole period imposed by the trial judge was incorrectly calculated, as it did not take into account the sentence for the indecent assault offence. The Court quashed the minimum term and imposed no further term in its place.

The Court of Appeal allowed Luce's appeal against sentence, resulting in a reduced sentence of five years imprisonment, with the indecent assault sentence running concurrently. The minimum term was quashed and no further term imposed.