R v Neil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

CRI-2016-087-000738 [2017] NZHC 1978

THE QUEEN

v

SHANE CHRISTOPHER NEIL

Hearing:
28 July and 18 August 2017

(Heard at HAMILTON)

Appearances:

R Jenson for Crown
R Laybourn for Defendant

Sentence:

18 August 2017

[FINAL] SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

R v NEIL [2017] NZHC 1978 [18 August 2017]

[1] On 30 June 2017 I delivered sentencing remarks in the High Court at Rotorua in which I found that an end sentence of one year 11 months imprisonment was an appropriate end sentence for you.1 That brought you within the range of a sentence of home detention. For the reasons set out in my sentencing remarks at that time, I considered that a sentence of home detention would be appropriate provided you could find a suitable address.2

[2] Not without some difficulty, you have now obtained a suitable address at which to serve a sentence of home detention. You will be living at that address in Hamilton with your mother. The EM bail assessors have visited the address and confirm that it is technically suitable for a grant of EM bail, and also that the occupants are suitable for such a grant. I am therefore satisfied it is appropriate to sentence you to serve a sentence of home detention at that address.

[3] I take into account the fact that you have now been subject to restrictive bail conditions for some time. I therefore impose a sentence of ten months home detention to be served at the nominated address. The conditions of that sentence will be as per the conditions contained in the EM bail assessor’s report. In addition, I impose a further condition that you are not to be in possession of, or consume, alcohol or non-prescription drugs for the duration of the sentence.

[4] Stand down.

Lang J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

1 R v Neil, Te Whetu & Parangi [2017] NZHC 1494.
2 At [52].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Tauranga Registry, the defendant Shane Christopher Neil faced sentencing for an unspecified criminal offence. The court had already determined an appropriate end sentence of one year and eleven months imprisonment, but considered a sentence of home detention to be more suitable, subject to the defendant finding a suitable address. The defendant eventually identified an address in Hamilton where he would reside with his mother, and the EM bail assessors confirmed that the address was suitable for a grant of electronic monitoring (EM) bail. The court accepted this address and sentenced the defendant to ten months of home detention, with conditions as outlined in the EM bail assessor’s report, and an additional prohibition on the possession or consumption of alcohol or non-prescription drugs.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account his suitability for home detention and the need to ensure compliance with the conditions of such a sentence. The court had to consider the defendant’s ability to find a suitable address for serving the home detention, the suitability of the chosen address, and the additional conditions necessary to ensure the defendant’s compliance and rehabilitation. The court also had to balance the defendant’s need for punishment with the potential benefits of home detention over imprisonment.

The court, in delivering its sentencing remarks, emphasised the defendant’s efforts to secure a suitable address and the confirmation by EM bail assessors that the address was appropriate. The court found the defendant’s prolonged period under restrictive bail conditions to be a mitigating factor and imposed a sentence of ten months of home detention, with specific conditions to ensure compliance. These conditions included a prohibition on alcohol and non-prescription drug use, reflecting the court’s desire to address underlying issues that may have contributed to the defendant's criminal behaviour. The court concluded that home detention was the appropriate sentence given the circumstances and the defendant's suitability for such a sentence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established