Nottingham succeeds in Supreme Court sentence reduction

Dermot Nottingham has had a rare success in court. He has been successful in an appeal to the Supreme Court over the length of his second home detention sentence, which means he doesn’t have to serve any more of the sentence revised by the Court of Appeal.

This result doesn’t surprise me, as teh maximum home detention term is 12 months and Nottingham has served that in total, although it effectively means the sentence increased by the Court of Appeal has been wiped even though the original High Court sentence was found to be inadequate.

Nottingham was found by both the High Court and Court of Appeal to be largely responsible for publications on the notorious Lauda Finem website, and for campaigns of harassment against five people (I think considered by the police to be just the worst examples but I think that is debatable).

Nottingham just avoided having to serve a prison sentence both times, and although the Crown argued that the reduction of his home detention should have meant the alternative was prison, the Supreme Court disagreed.

Decision

Mr Nottingham was convicted of publishing information in breach of suppression orders and criminal harassment. On 26 July 2018, he was sentenced in the District Court to a term of 12 months’ home detention. Mr Nottingham appealed against conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal and the Solicitor-General appealed against sentence. By the time the Court of Appeal heard the appeal, Mr Nottingham had served three and a half months of his sentence of home detention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Nottingham’s appeal against conviction and sentence. The Court allowed the Solicitor-General’s appeal, quashing the original sentence and imposing a new sentence of 12 months’ home detention.

Mr Nottingham was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against
sentence. The only issue on appeal was whether the Court of Appeal erred in imposing a term of home detention which would mean that, in total, Mr Nottingham would serve 15 and a half months of home detention. The issue arose because s 80A(3) of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides that the maximum term of a sentence of home detention is 12 months.

Mr Nottingham submitted that he could not lawfully be required to serve more than 12 months’ home detention as this was the statutory maximum in s 80A(3). The Solicitor-General submitted that the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was permissible because the Court had imposed a new sentence. In these circumstances, the Solicitor-General argued that the old sentence ceased to exist and that the new Court of Appeal sentence started on the day it was imposed.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed Mr Nottingham’s appeal. The Court held that s 80A(3) was clear that the maximum term of home detention that can be imposed in relation to an offence is 12 months. Therefore, the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to impose a sentence of 12 months’ home detention in circumstances where Mr Nottingham had already served some time on home detention. The practical effect of the Court of Appeal’s decision was that Mr Nottingham would have to serve more than 12 months’ home detention, contrary to the maximum in s 80A(3).

In order to get to a position where Mr Nottingham’s sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum, the Supreme Court exercised its powers to vary sentences under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. It did so by varying the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal to a sentence of eight and a half months’ home detention with a backdated start date of 30 July 2019.

Supreme Court judgment: Dermot Gregory Nottingham v R

Court of Appeal judgment: NOTTINGHAM v R [2019] NZCA 344 [30 July 2019]

Both the High Court and Court of Appeal sentences seemed a bit contrived, both arriving at a 24 month prison sentence which is the maximum that can be converted to 12 months home detention.

The Court of Appeal stated:

The sentence was premised on the following findings of fact which we agree were consistent with the jury’s verdicts:

(a) Mr Nottingham either was LF (in other words the leading mind of that
blog) or he was so intimately related to it that it was proper to conclude
that he provided information and draft articles to that blog knowing and
intending that they would be published.

(b) Publication and other intimidating and harassing conduct was either
carried out by Mr Nottingham himself or at his direction and he knew
his conduct was likely to cause the individuals involved to fear for their
safety or that of family members.

(c) Although Mr Nottingham may, at least initially, have reasonably
believed he had legitimate grievances in respect of the complainants,
he elected to pursue these, not by lawful and reasonable means, but by
personal attacks on an “anything goes” basis.

With multiple charges and different offences sentencing can be complicated.

Based on seven convictions the High Court judge arrived at a total sentence of 2 years and 4 months prison but gave a 4 month deduction:

…to reflect what he described as Mr Nottingham’s “multi-faceted and complex” health problems s, which in the Judge’s view meant that a sentence of imprisonment would be much harder for him than for an average middle-aged man in reasonable health. He identified this as the only mitigating factor resulting in a provisional end sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

That required the judge to consider replacing that with a 1 year home detention sentence, which he did.

He said he regarded home detention as an appropriate and sufficient response, particularly because of the ability to impose restrictive conditions limiting Mr Nottingham’s activities and assisting his rehabilitation.

Special conditions were imposed including that Mr Nottingham attend
counselling or treatment programmes as directed by a probation officer and that he not use any electronic device capable of accessing the internet without prior approval from a probation officer.

Mr Nottingham said that the sentences should be commuted to time served (three and a half months home detention) and without the requirement for community work on the primary ground that the LF articles on which the harassment charges were based were “not designed to make anyone fear for their safety”.

By contrast, the Crown submitted the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that nothing less than a custodial sentence is sufficient to capture the level of denunciation and deterrence required for what it says was an egregious breach of non-publication orders and malicious and misogynistic attacks on members of the public

The Court of Appeal agreed that Nottingham’s various health issues needed to be taken into account and justified the 4 month reduction in sentence, despite the lack of remorse – he continued to blame others for his attacks on them.

But they arrived at a longer sentence of 31 months imprisonment, which in itself is too much to qualify him for home detention.

But they also had to take into account the 3 and a half months home detention Nottingham had also served, which equates to 7 months prison. So lo and behold, deducting that from the sentence it came to 24 months prison to be served, which again brought home detention into play. So it was converted to 12 months home detention again, but as the Supreme Court found, he shouldn’t serve the 3 and a half months plus the 12 months.

So in total Nottingham served 12 months home detention for a 31 month prison sentence. Such is our judicial system.

I don’t have a problem with him not serving prison time (although other victims of his harassment may have different ideas on that).

But time will tell whether the sentence served will deter Nottingham from further harassment.

We encourage the Department of Corrections Community Probation Service to consider a requirement that Mr Nottingham attend such counselling or courses as would assist him in management of his PTSD and in his incipient understanding (as recorded by the Judge) that his abrasive and combative approach to others may, in part, be consequential on this diagnosis.

His abrasive and combative approach is still apparent. While serving home detention and being banned from internet use Nottingham managed to start legal proceedings against Jacinda Ardern and Ashley Bloomfield:

In doing so, Mr Nottingham has engaged in political comments of a personalised nature, particularly against the Prime Minister.

See  NOTTINGHAM v ARDERN [2020] NZCA 144 [4 May 2020].

But this isn’t the end of this case. Nottingham is still subject to six months of post detention conditions which according to his original sentencing notes and reiterated by the Supreme Court – “The standard and special
post-detention conditions imposed by the Court of Appeal remain in place for the remainder of the 12-month and six-month post-detention periods respectively” – which mirror his home detention conditions, which include:

(a) That you attend an assessment for counselling, treatment or programme as directed by a probation officer. That you attend and complete any counselling, treatment or programme as recommended by the assessment as directed by and to the satisfaction of a probation officer.

(b) You are not to associate with or contact any victim or witness of your offending without prior written approval of a probation officer, except in relation to … in relation to current proceedings. Again, the rider that it must be approved by a probation officer will cover the means by which that correspondence is to be carried out, just for the avoidance of confusion.

(c) You are not to possess or use any electronic device capable of accessing the Internet for capturing, storing, accessing or distributing images (including without limitation any personal computers, notebooks,
tablets or cellphones) without prior written approval from a probation
officer.

So those conditions are still in place for six months (I’m not sure when from).

Nottingham on bail pending Supreme Court appeal of length of home detention

Dermot Nottingham has had a couple of rare successes in court – The Supreme Court recently granted him leave to appeal the length of his home detention sentence, and he has been granted bail pending that appeal.

But there us some risk with his appeal as there is a possibility that the sentence of home detention would have to be replaced with a sentence of imprisonment. And he failed to get leave to appeal a failed application for habeas corpus.

In 2015 Nottingham was charged on two counts of breach of suppression and five counts of criminal harassment.

After a number of delays he was found guilty by a jury in 2018 and a 24 month prison sentence was calculated. This is the maximum that can be converted to a home detention sentence, so this was changed to 12 months home detention, largely on illness grounds despite the sentence being served in the home from which a lot of the offending had occurred via the Lauda Finem website. This was the maximum length home detention sentence allowed under law.

Nottingham appealed both the conviction and sentence and failed with both appeals.

The Solicitor General also appealed the sentence as inadequate and won, so the original sentence was quashed. A new sentence of 31 months home detention was calculated, but as Nottingham had already served three and a half months home detention before getting bail 7 months was deducted, leaving a 24 month prison sentence. This again was the maximum possible that could be converted to home detention, so a new sentence of 12 months home detention was imposed.

NOTTINGHAM v R [2019] NZCA 344 [30 July 2019]

Nottingham appealed this new sentence at the Supreme Court, claiming that the maximum home detention sentence available was 12 moths and he would effectively serve 15 and a half months home detention.

DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM v R [2019] NZSC 144 [12 December 2019]

He then went back to the Supreme Court and was granted a recall and leave to appeal.

 DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM v R [2020] NZSC 23 [20 March 2020]

He went back to the Supreme Court seeking bail. This was heard on 24 April.

Bail is opposed by the Crown on a number of bases. The key submissions can be summarised as follows. First, it is said that the appeal has no merit. This submission relies primarily on the proposition that the previous sentence was of no effect once quashed by the Court of Appeal and also on the fact that the time served was taken into account by that Court. On this basis, the sentence imposed was lawful.

We accept the submission for the Crown that the application for bail should be treated as an application for bail pending determination of the sentence appeal. It is therefore necessary to decide whether a grant of bail is in the interests of justice.

We consider that test is met primarily because there is a risk that Mr Nottingham’s sentence appeal would otherwise be rendered nugatory. The point of Mr Nottingham’s appeal is to establish he could not lawfully be required to serve more than 12 months’ home detention. It is not disputed that Mr Nottingham has now served 12 months’ home detention.

But “rendered nugatory” is just one possibility.

Second, the submission is that there is no risk that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if bail is not granted. This is essentially because, the Crown says, that if Mr Nottingham succeeds on his appeal then the sentence of home detention would have to be replaced with a sentence of imprisonment.

I wonder if Nottingham considered the possibility that if he succeeded with his appeal against sentence the outcome could be prison. But that’s not certain.

The submission for the Crown that the appeal is not otherwise rendered nugatory relies on the proposition that a sentence of imprisonment would inevitably be imposed on Mr Nottingham should his appeal succeed. But that is not necessarily so. The Court would have the usual powers applicable on a sentence appeal.

Nevertheless there is a risk of an own goal (or own gaol).

But bail was granted pending the hearing of the appeal, with some strict conditions:

  • (c) not to associate or have contact, directly or indirectly, with any of the witnesses who gave evidence for the Crown (or whose evidence was read or admitted by consent) in the District Court trial, other than with written consent from Crown counsel;
  • (d) not to associate or have contact, directly or indirectly, with the victims in the District Court trial (T, C, H, B and M);
  • (e) not to access the Lauda Finem website other than for the purpose of preparing material directly relevant to the appeal;
  • (f) not to post information on, or provide information to be posted on, the Lauda Finem website; and
  • (g) not to post information on, or provide information to be posted on, any website relatable directly or indirectly to the victims in the District Court trial (referred to in (d) above).

Getting bail during Covid lockdown is only a partial reprieve.

Interesting to see the explicit ban on using Lauda Finem. In his trial Nottingham was found to be the primary person responsible for many attack posts on Lauda Finem, but the blog was shut down (via another court action) and a mirror site hasn’t had any new posts for three years.

But the ban also includes ‘any website’ relatable to the offences.

Also:  The proposed habeas corpus appeal

The habeas corpus appeal is essentially brought on the same basis, that is, detention beyond the period of 12 months is unlawful.

The habeas corpus application was dismissed by van Bohemen J on two bases. First, the Judge considered that the respondent in that case had established the lawfulness of the detention because Mr Nottingham was subject to detention under a lawful order of the Court. Second, the Judge found that habeas corpus was not an appropriate remedy where Mr Nottingham was using habeas corpus to pursue his sentence appeal.

We are satisfied that there are no exceptional circumstances to justify a direct appeal to this Court. That is because, as van Bohemen J found, the question Mr Nottingham would have the Court consider is “classically a question for appeal” and Mr Nottingham will have that on 14 May 2020. His position in the interim is preserved by the grant of bail.

So  the application for leave to appeal against the decision declining habeas corpus was dismissed.

Dermot Gregory Nottingham v R

From the High Court judgment:

It is apparent that Mr Nottingham is asking the High Court to hold that the Court of Appeal’s decision to impose a sentence of 12 months’ home imprisonment is wrong in law. That is a matter for appeal. It is well beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.

NOTTINGHAM v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 332 [28 February 2020]

Nottingham was applying for habeas corpus to the High Court for essentially the same purpose as his concurrent Court of Appeal action (now at the Supreme Court).

The Supreme Court will hear Nottingham’s appeal against the length of his home detention sentence on 14 May 2020.

Dermot Nottingham appeals fail, sentence increased

The original 12 month home detention sentence (three and a half of which has been served) and 100 hours community work has been quashed, and replaced with a new sentence of 12 months home detention presumably beginning from the appeal judgment made last week. He has been banned again from using the Internet for 18 months.

After being charged in 2015 and following numerous delays Dermot Nottingham went to trial last year and was found guilty by a jury of five criminal harassment charges and two breaches of court suppression orders.  He was sentenced in July 2018.

Nottingham appealed both the conviction and sentence, and the Crown also appealed the sentence, claiming it was ‘manifestly inadequate’.  Nottingham has lost both of his appeals, and the sentence has been increased, but again by a judicial whisker he has avoided a prison sentence.

NZ Herald: Blogger’s convictions for ‘malicious and misogynistic attacks’ on former MP, business people stick

Auckland’s Crown Solicitor Brian Dickey said at Nottingham’s sentencing the breaches were an “attack on the High Court”.

Judge Jonathan Down also categorised the breaches as “blatant and contemptuous” and noted Nottingham showed no remorse.

In one instance he sent one of his victims a scene from the Quentin Tarantino film Pulp Fiction, which showed a person being shot in the head.

He can be very nasty, and has attacked many people over the last decade. The charges were laid were deemed representative of the worst examples, but that’s debatable, I have heard claims of despicable attacks (disclosure –  Nottingham has attacked me extensively including trying unsuccessfully to prosecute and imprison me, which was part vindictiveness, part an attempt to concoct a defence for the charges he faced).

All of Nottingham’s harassment victims have been granted permanent name suppression.

The Crown also alleged various other acts of harassment, including “following”, and in one case initiating a private prosecution.

I’m ware of private prosecutions against seven people or companies. These all failed, and after hundreds of thousands of dollars of court costs were awarded against him Nottingham with no attempt made to pay them Nottingham was adjudicated bankrupt in September 2018.

Nottingham, who represented himself, had also called former Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater to give evidence and argued at his trial that his “articles” were covered by freedom of expression rights.

Slater has also been implicated in making use of the notorious attack website that Nottingham was found to have been the main user of. From his sentencing notes last year “Either Dermot Nottingham is Lauda Finem (in other words, the leading mind of that blog) or he is so intimately related to it that it is proper to conclude that he provided information and draft articles to that blog site knowing and intending that they would be published. He makes the concession…that he has never denied that he has supplied information to the website…” – see “Either Dermot Nottingham is Lauda Finem…or he is so intimately related to it…”

Nottingham and Slater have been associated in a number of legal proceedings (including the attempted prosecution of myself and three others), but others have also been involved and aided and abetted, including his brothers Phillip and Antony, Marc Spring and Earle McKinney.

During his appeal, Nottingham argued his convictions should be quashed because the blog site was based overseas.

“You cannot be a party to a crime that never occurred in an overseas jurisdiction,” he said.

So he didn’t deny attacking and defaming people on the website, he just claimed he was immune from new Zealand law.

However, in his summing-up at the trial, Judge Down said: “Even if the main parts of a crime are committed abroad, if you do something to further that crime, and you have done it in New Zealand, that crime, the whole thing can be prosecuted in New Zealand.”

The Court of Appeal judges, Justice John Wild, Justice Susan Thomas and Justice Matthew Muir, agreed.

“We identify no error in that direction,” they said.

Slater’s “unambiguous position” was it was impossible to do anything online which did not leave “footprints everywhere”, the Court of Appeal decision reads.

Despite this, the Court of Appeal sided with the Crown’s position that the circumstantial evidence relied on was “very strong, if not overwhelming”.

It included text messages and internet history showing Nottingham was trying to obtain and research information about the Dudley case, particularly the names of the defendants.

While a police search of computers Nottingham had access to identified several key court documents, including the judge’s sentencing notes, witness statements and a witness list.

Seven hours before publication of the blog, Nottingham also wrote to the police officer heading the inquiry with the subject line: “Report I Am authoring on the Dudley killing”.

The Court of Appeal said much of the harassment material “could at best be described as virulent opinion with only a tangential connection to anything arguably true”.

In other words, Nottingham attacked people making false accusations and assertions, something I have seen a lot of in emails and court documents.

“As the Crown said in closing, the posts were littered with ‘hate-filled [invective]’ and were strongly misogynistic,” the judges said.

In calculating the sentence the Court of Appeal judges arrived at 31 months’ imprisonment – about 30 per cent higher than Judge Down’s end point.

However, in re-sentencing Nottingham, the trio of judges was “obliged” to take into account the three and a half months of home detention he had already served.

“Allowing a seven-month discount in this respect again brings Mr Nottingham’s sentence to a level where the court is obliged to consider home detention.”

If that had been the original sentence last year Nottingham would have ended up in prison.

The court quashed the existing, part-served, sentence and imposed a new 12 months’ home detention term, plus the 100 hours of community work for the suppression breach.

Nottingham’s special conditions also remained, and include not using any electronic device capable of accessing the internet without prior approval from a probation officer.

I take from this that the new 12 months home detention term begins from last week’s appeal judgment. And I presume there remains a further 6 month Internet ban after that, which would run through to early 2021.

At least this and his bankruptcy (after he took nearly a year to file a statement of affairs he is due to be discharged from bankruptcy on 11 September 2022) should limit his capability to attack and harass people online should also restrict his habit of vexatious litigation.

Nottingham and his gang of online thugs remain unrepentant and a lot of defamatory attack material remains online, but that poses more risks to him than anyone. I think at least one legal proceeding continues against Nottingham for posts done years ago.

Will Nottingham try to appeal this new sentence in the Supreme Court? On past behaviour he may like to try, but the Official Assignee may make that difficult if not impossible. I need to find out, because bizarrely suppression on aspects of the failed case against me continues until his case has reached a final resolution.

When more details are available online in the judgment I will do a post on that.


Many judgments with suppression involved or from the District are not published online, but here is a reference to some of those that are:

Nottingham v Maltese Cat Limited [2019] NZCA 246 (24 June 2019)

That is just back to 2015, Nottingham has a long legal history.

I think in all but one of those Nottingham lost his case.

There is one appeal he won, where a High Court judge supported a District Court judge ruling that Nottingham was in contempt of Court, but due to the judge not following procedures correctly the finding was set aside.

Prisoner numbers reducing & 3000 offenders a year sentenced to home detention

A lot is being said about the escalating prison population over the last decade – but it could have been far worse if home detention hadn’t been introduced in 2007. There are now about 3,000 people a year being sentenced to home detention.

although the numbers have eased back since early this year due to new measures that have been successful particularly in getting people on bail more, and getting them off remand faster (by getting them to trial faster).

David Fisher at The Great Escape – prison crisis eases after Corrections thinks outside the cell

The stressed prison network has had a Great Escape – a string of innovations allowing inmates and those charged with crimes better access to justice services has seen a huge fall in inmate numbers.

Our prisons now have 1000 fewer inmates than official projections and the prison population – around 10,200 – has fallen by 600 people in the past six months.

The changes haven’t involved keeping out of prison any people who should have been locked up.

Instead, it has seen “embarrassingly simple” wrinkles ironed out of the system which appear to have improved people’s access to justice.

A number of smaller projects had been underway for about 18 months but Corrections minister Kelvin Davis signed off on a permanent programme in January 2018.

So projects started under the previous covernment and continued under the current government.

The programme of change has been led by Corrections deputy national commissioner Leigh Marsh.

Marsh said innovations included trying to understand why so many on electronic bail were “failing and clogging up the system”.

When the process was studied, it was found those arrested with literacy issues were being handed complex forms to fill in that they couldn’t understand.

About 70 per cent of those currently in prison have literacy level considered insufficient for modern life.

Others couldn’t supply phone numbers so addresses could be checked as suitable bail addresses because the number was saved on the phone which was removed after they were arrested.

When prisoners were asked how they intended getting the phone numbers to arrange bail, they had reportedly planned writing letters to family.

There were now advisers who were available to talk to those who were freshly remanded to better understand why they had been refused bail – and to help obtain details such as phone numbers.

Corrections was also trialling in Wellington a service aimed at assisting those applying for bail. The bail service would help those charged arrange appropriate bail addresses, and to connect with programmes needed to address offending, such as services to deal with alcohol and drug abuse.

Once in the community, there were others who worked to help those on bail understand their conditions and to connect with support which might be needed.

Other innovations included helping those appearing for sentence find a suitable address for home detention, getting police evidence to those accused to enable faster pleas and ensuring those appearing for parole had taken necessary courses.

He said the biggest difference had been in the remand population. The number of people sent to prison to await trial ballooned after a new 2013 law which made it harder to get bail.

Marsh said the prison population had peaked in around 10,800 in March and had since trended down to around 10,200 now. It was currently around 1000 fewer inmates than Ministry of Justice predictions.

Successful changes.

And prisoner numbers have also been kept lower than they otherwise would have been by using home detention.

Judge Stephen O’Driscoll – Home Detention provides real alternative to prison

Since 2007 the District Court has been able to impose a sentence of home detention. Now about 3000 offenders a year are being sentenced to home detention.

In the sentencing hierarchy home detention sits above community-based sentences but below imprisonment. Home detention is, therefore, a real alternative to imprisonment.

Home detention means an offender has to serve their sentence at a specific residence instead of in prison.

The sentence must be for more than 14 days but no more than 12 months.  It can be imposed as a sentence in its own right or combined with other sentences such as community work.

Home detention should not be seen as a “soft option”.  It is in effect a curfew at an agreed address, and it is monitored electronically.

The offender must not leave the address at any time, except to seek urgent medical or dental treatment, or to avoid or minimise a serious risk of death or injury.

An offender may get approval to leave the address to seek or do paid work, or to attend training or other rehabilitative activities or programmes, or for any other purpose specifically approved by a probation officer.

A special condition that judges often impose with home detention is judicial monitoring.  This means the judge will receive regular progress reports from the probation officer. In 2017, judges monitored 275 cases in this way.

The court cannot impose home detention if the offender does not agree to it or the conditions. Interestingly, a number of offenders do not consent and the court is left with little option but to impose imprisonment.

Someone on home detention will usually wear an electronic anklet that continually emits a signal and triggers an alarm if the offender leaves the designated address without permission. Should that happen, a monitoring centre will send a security officer to investigate and report to the supervising probation officer who would then take any appropriate action.

The anklet is waterproof and is designed to be worn 24 hours a day.  Offenders can also be monitored while at work or while attending rehabilitative programmes.

The court cannot impose home detention if the place the offender proposes to live is not in an area where the Department of Corrections runs a home detention scheme or where an ankle bracelet’s GPS signal cannot be picked up.

Before imposing the sentence, a court must consider a report from a probation officer, which among other things, will advise whether the proposed residence is suitable.

Anyone else living there is required to understand the conditions of the sentence, and will need to consent to the offender serving the sentence there, in keeping with the conditions.  The occupants may withdraw their consent at any time.

Home detention has several advantages.  It can allow defendants to continue in paid work, remain in their accommodation and maintain family relationships.

It is also less costly to supervise than jail and has high compliance rates.

Most offenders know that should they breach the sentence or re-offend while on home detention, then they are highly likely to be sent to jail.

If a judge decides on a sentence of more than 2 years imprisonment they can consider home detention as an alternative. Corrections:

Home detention is an alternative to imprisonment and is intended for offenders who otherwise would have received a short prison sentence (of two years or less) for their offending.

Only sentencing judges can impose home detention. They must take into consideration advice provided by a probation officer who has assessed the offender, and the home address and any people who live there.

Offenders who receive a home detention sentence are subject to standard and special conditions.

Electronic monitoring equipment is installed at the offender’s address and their compliance monitored for the length of the sentence.

People who are on home detention may also be required to:

  • pay a fine
  • pay reparation to their victim/s
  • do community work.

Offenders must apply to their probation officer if they need to be absent from their home detention address. Their probation officer will decide whether to approve the request.

A probation officer may approve an offender’s absence from their detention address so they can go to: work, study, rehabilitation programmes, the doctor, and appointments with other agencies. All absences from the address are monitored by alternative means – such as verification from the offender’s sponsor or checking on appointments.

It seems to be generally working successfully in keeping people out of prison.