×

Registrant Details

Use this window to add all the registrants you wish to register on behalf of. If you want to attend the course also, ensure you add yourself as one of the registrants. Make sure you press "Save" after adding each new registrant.

Registrant 1
First name
Last Name
Email Address
Username ( if known )
NZLS Member or Associate Member?
1x Registrant
Proceed to Checkout

Author: Tim Conder
Published: 1 June 2022
Pages: 22

Introduction

For many, if not most, criminal defendants, their first concern when faced with a criminal charge is “what am I going to get for this.” For traditional criminal clients, this can be a particularly daunting concern – an 18 year-old facing a single charge of possessing 5.1 grams of class B methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine (MDMA) (just over the presumption of possession for supply) may well be served with a charging document that solemnly warns that the maximum penalty for the charge is life imprisonment – a misleading claim when the average defendant would expect community work for the same offending.

The reality is that for many defendants it is the possible punishment for a crime – rather than the conviction for it – that will assume central importance in their defence. This is one of the reasons why sentence indications can be such a powerful tool. It is also especially true for regulatory offences where for most defendants (or their insurers as the case may be) the question of how big a fine they will receive is of singular importance.

However, this one dimensional perspective on sentencing can be limiting. While a sentence is measured in terms of the final outcome, a good sentence, one that reflects well on the defence lawyer who has advocated for it, will have a number of constituent parts – each of which will ultimately bear on the sentence imposed.

This seminar follows the pattern of a criminal sentencing – as modelled by the leading decisions of Taueki, Hessell and Moses. It begins with principles and purposes of sentencing – to set the scene for the assessment to be done. This includes a consideration of the hierarchy of sentences, and in particular a consideration of discharges without conviction. It turns then to starting points, and in particular the sentencing facts that underpin them. Finally, it considers questions of mitigation – the personal circumstances that can justify a different response, and the avenues open to defendant’s to reduce the sentence that might otherwise be imposed.

 

Content outline

  • What is a sentence?
  • Starting points
  • Pre-sentence reports
View contents page
CONDER Tim    
Tim Conder
Holland Beckett,
Tauranga		    

Questions?

In order to assist us in reducing spam, please type the characters you see:

You might also be interested in ...