Mbuyisa v S (183/11) [2011] ZASCA 146

In the 2011 case of Mbuyisa v S (183/11) ZASCA 146 the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa determined that there was no error by the sentencing judge in not considering restorative justice. The court held that restorative justice should not be devalued by use in inappropriate matters. The offence, pouring petrol over the victim and setting him alight, was brutal and severe. Therefore, a restorative justice order was not considered appropriate (para. 17).

R v Schell, 2015 ONSC 6013

In the 2015 case of R v Schell ONSC 6013 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decided upon a ‘creative’ sentence of three months to be served intermittently, in line with the principles in Gladue and Ipeelee (para. 40). The defendant, who had committed a robbery and assault, was eager to get back to work, and was likely to find work relatively quickly in his relevant field. The court also considered that employment was very important for the progress and self-esteem of the offender (para. 41).

Dickerson v Police [2016] NZHC 801 (27 April 2016)

In the 2016 case of Dickerson v Police NZHC 801 the appellant, while on bail for assaulting his brother and grandmother, assaulted his partner. The appellant attended restorative justice with his partner, and the judge reduced the sentence by 28 percent, with the majority of the discount for a guilty plea. The High Court of New Zealand held that the sentencing judge is not required to go into ‘chapter and verse’ regarding their decision (para. 33).

R v Corbin [2016] NZHC 2570 (27 October 2016)

 

In the 2016 case of R v Corbin NZHC 2570 the High Court of New Zealand found that a willingness to engage in a restorative justice conference with the victim, accompanied by remorse, evidenced the victim’s positive insight into his offending (para. 23). A two-month discount was allowed to provide for these positive aspects (para. 24).

Tupu v Police [2014] NZHC 743 (9 April 2014)

In the 2014 case of Tupu v Police NZHC 743 the appellant appealed against a decision declining her application for discharge without conviction for assault. The High Court of New Zealand held that a positive outcome resulting from a restorative justice conference was significant and should have played a stronger role in the sentencing judge’s assessment. The remorse following the conference ‘did much to ameliorate the gravity of the offending’ (para. 26). Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was discharged without conviction.

Katoa v Police [2015] NZHC 1562

In the 2015 case of Katoa v Police NZHC 1562, the appellant pleaded guilty to an aggravated robbery and common assault charge. The case involved an appeal that considered whether a sentence discount should have been given for the defendant’s willingness to engage in restorative justice. The High Court of New Zealand held that it was appropriate for the sentencing judge not to allow a discount for willingness alone.