R v Kayaitok, 2014 NUCJ 11

In the 2014 case of R v Kayaitok NUCJ 11 the male offender murdered his female partner with whom he had been in an off-and-on relationship with for 14 years and with whom he had four children. The Nanavut Court of Justice confirmed the Gladue principle (para. 38)

In sentencing aboriginal offenders, a court must try to give the greatest weight to the principles of restorative justice and less weight to the principles of deterrence and denunciation and separation.

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 Poarau [2016] NZHC 443 (15 March 2016)

In the 2016 case of R v Poarau NZHC 443 the High Court of New Zealand held that there ‘can be no justification’ for a discount for a successful restorative justice process, and a further discount for remorse. Alternatively, the outcome of a restorative justice process should be considered ‘in the context of assessing’ whether the offender is ‘genuinely remorseful’ (para. 49). In such a serious case involving family violence and the use of a weapon, the court stressed that the purposes of deterrence and denunciation must remain significant (para. 27).

R v Mahia [2014] NZHC 1396 (19 June 2014)

In the 2014 case of R v Mahia NZHC 1396 the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and sexual violation of the victim with whom he had been in a volatile intermittent relationship. The defendant indicated a willingness to participate in a restorative justice process. The judge considered this ‘unrealistic’ as a result of the attitude displayed by the defendant when ‘challenged by others’ and ‘in the context of the subject’ of the victim’s death (para. 28).