Lawes, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 2767 (11 December 2009)

In the 2009 case of Lawes, R v EWCA Crim 2767 the appellant pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. The England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) found that the appellant was prepared to engage in restorative justice and this had been ignored by the sentencing judge (para. 22). The court held that, alongside a suspended sentence of imprisonment and community service, an order be made to participate, if possible, in a restorative justice programme (para. 24).

R v Noganosh, 2017 ONSC 131

In the 2017 case of R v Noganosh ONSC 131 the offender pleaded guilty to dangerous driving resulting in the death of two victims, and the bodily harm of a third victim. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that, although a 12-month period of incarceration was relatively short, combined with a substantial community service order this sentence served the objectives of restorative justice and rehabilitation.

R v Prince [2011] NZHC 1988 (5 December 2011)

Culpable driving, manslaughter and dangerous driving causing injury.

In the 2011 case of R v Prince NZHC 1988 the High Court of New Zealand stressed that there was a balance of factors which played a role in sentencing. Williams J highlighted that (para. 30)

McMillan v Police [2014] NZHC 150 (13 February 2014)

In the 2014 case of McMillan v Police NZHC 150 the High Court of New Zealand held that the sentencing judge’s allowance for participation in restorative justice was too low ‘in the context of the appellant’s very evident remorse, his offer of substantial reparation and the views of those victims who had commented directly on the issue of imprisonment’ (para. 60). An allowance of 20 per cent was considered appropriate (para. 61). 

Feng v Police Unreported High Court Auckland A127/02

In the 2002 decision in Feng v Police Unreported High Court Auckland A127/02 (Salmon J), an appeal court reversed a refusal of home detention on a two-year term of imprisonment for dangerous driving causing death. The court in overturning the original decision was satisfied that the deceased’s mother’s remarks during the restorative conference that ‘we are not here to punish you or judge you’ indicated that a measure of retribution had been achieved in the conference other than by punishment (para. 18).