R v Satherley

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal against a sentencing order made by Judge McKegg. Daniel Satherley was convicted of raping a 16-year-old girl and sentenced to three years of compulsory care under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. The Solicitor-General sought leave to appeal against the order made by Judge McKegg, arguing that the finding of intellectual disability was incorrect, the order under s 34(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 was not appropriate given the seriousness of the offending and the risk posed by the respondent to the public, and a sentence of imprisonment of at least six years ought to have been imposed after making due allowance for the respondent’s mental impairment. The Court found that Judge Zohrab erred in concluding that the respondent was of significantly sub-average general intelligence. However, the Court concluded that even if the powers under s 34 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 were available to Judge McKegg, he should not have exercised them in the circumstances. The Court agreed that an order under s 34(1)(b)(ii) should not have been made in this case as the order should be reserved for less serious offending, where deterrence and protection of the public are not imperative. The Court quashed the order made under s 34(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 and sentenced Satherley to supervision for two years on the special conditions specified in the judgment.