It noted this was a significant change for a narrow group of offenders.
In that case, the man who is now in his mid-20s was charged in relation to one rape and two sexual violations against three victims.
His lawyers argued that had the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 (OTA), which governs the youth justice system, been applied, a prison sentence would have been imposed only as a last resort.
“The result in this case, it is submitted, is that the young man has been subjected to a considerably harsher penalty than would have been imposed under the OTA, by virtue only of the timing of the complaint and charge,” the Supreme Court’s decision said.
The court found that although he was now an adult, his sentencing should have “drawn on the Oranga Tamariki Act youth justice principles because he was 15 when he committed the lead offence”.
Today, the court issued a ruling in cases involving two other young men, F v King and N v King, after April hearings for them both.
In both cases, each was found guilty of rape, which they committed when they were about 15 or 16 years old.
One was jailed for five years and seven months, while the other was jailed for four years and one month, which was reduced to three years and six months on appeal.
At sentencing, each received discounts for their youth.
At April’s hearing before five justices of the Supreme Court, lawyers for both men who brought the sentencing appeal argued that, in light of the G v King decision, the cases should be sent back to the District Court for resentencing.
The Supreme Court issued its findings in the appeal cases today. Photo / Getty Images
Both submitted their clients would likely have received lighter sentences if the principles of the earlier case had also been applied to theirs.
The Crown agreed with the appellants that the cases should be remitted back to the District Court for resentencing.
In upholding its earlier decision of G v King and that the principles of youth justice should be considered in aged-out offenders cases, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered the proceedings be sent back for resentencing in the District Court.
‘How is this fair?’
The father of one of the victims said today’s decision from the Supreme Court was “frustrating”.
It was frustrating not only for his daughter, but the whole family, who have been dragged through the courts over the past six years.
“It’s gut-wrenching that we have to go through all this process again,” he told NZME.
“He’s done the crime. We’re the victims, and it’s never-ending for us. Even when he was in jail, we thought, great, he can’t do anything now.
“Next thing, he’s appealed.”
Then, he appealed again.
“There’s no peace in it.”
He said his daughter’s mental health was now “in the gutter”.
“She’s suffered traumatically. She can’t work; she’s getting therapy.
“It’s just ruined our family, and ruined [victim’s] life.”
The father said the young man had never apologised or taken any accountability for what happened.
“We had to move house, up sticks and move somewhere else.
“It’s like, how is this fair?”
Court rejects request to clarify earlier decision
The Crown also argued that further general guidance on sentencing methodology was required to clarify the court’s earlier decision for future cases in relation to G v King and the Sentencing Act.
But the Supreme Court rejected that, saying supplementary guidance wasn’t necessary.
Instead, today’s outcome summarised the new approach for sentencing aged-out offenders, as set out in G v King.
This included the likely outcome under the OTA, which must be considered as part of the normal sentencing methodology.
If a community-based response would have been reasonably likely under the OTA, then the court must apply a consistent outcome.
And if a community-based sentence was still appropriate for the now adult offender, an appropriate sentence must be arrived at that reflects relevant sentencing purposes, principles and factors.
The Supreme Court also noted the earlier decision was not a guideline judgment and “must be applied on its terms for future cases, and in any case where an applicant is able to persuade the court to reopen the sentencing outcome”.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.