R v Edmonds - [2020] NSWDC 687

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Edmonds [2020] NSWDC 687
Hearing dates: 6 October 2020
Decision date: 06 November 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years 6 months with a non parole period of 3 years 4 months.

Catchwords:
CRIME - SENTENCE - doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s319

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Kelly Edmonds (Offender)
Representation:
Mr Kelly (ODPP)
Mr Townsend (Solicitor for the offender)

File Number(s): 2019/00360389
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Kelly Edmonds, you appear for sentence in relation to two offences. Each offence is doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice.
Each offence involves a contravention of s319 of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for each offence is 14 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.
The facts surrounding your offending are contained in a document entitled “Amended Statement of Agreed Facts” (Exhibit B).
Recast by me as to style, but not substance, the facts may be summarised as follows.
As at October 2017, you were the partner of Ms Hayley Karaitiana who had been charged with offences of: firing at a dwelling house with disregard for the safety of persons inside that dwelling house; and possessing a shortened firearm. Ms Karaitiana had been refused bail in relation to those two charges.
On 10 October 2017, the legal representatives for Ms Karaitiana made a bail application on her behalf in the New South Wales Supreme Court.
As part of the material tendered in those proceedings on behalf of the applicant were two letters purportedly prepared and signed by Dr Anna Sellbach of the Saint Andrew’s War Memorial Hospital in Queensland.
One of those letters was dated 15 August 2017 and, in part, it contained the following information:

“I first reviewed Ms Karaitiana after receiving a referral from Dr Chowdhury AKRMA UZ ZAMAN.

Past History

2008 Cervical Cancer

2015 Lung Cancer (left)

2017 – Diabetes

2017 CVA

Subsequent testings after Ms Karaitiana’s CVA revealed multiple metastatic lesions on the brain.

Ms Karaitiana requires specialist treatment and management for this terminal condition in order to maintain her quality of life.

Without such treatment Ms Karaitiana’s (sic) QOL would be very bleak.”

The other letter was dated 27 September 2017, and, amongst other things, it included the following:

“It would be extremely beneficial for Ms Karaitiana to commence radiation therapy and chemotherapy at her earliest convenience.

I have been informed of the difficulty this presents to Ms Karaitiana being currently incarcerated.

It is imperative that this treatment be commenced as soon as practicable and for the patient to be reviewed in 3-6 months to assess her response to treatment in the hopes of her being suitable for surgery.”

On 10 October 2017, the Supreme Court granted Ms Karaitiana bail. In making those orders, Schmidt J, having noted that the parties agreed that cause had been shown (the firearm offences being…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Edmonds

Details

AGLC: R v Edmonds [2020] NSWDC 687
Case: [2020] NSWDC 687
Decision Date: 06 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Edmonds, was convicted of doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal in New South Wales, with the conviction and sentence being appealed by the appellant. The legal issues before the court involved the assessment of the appropriate sentence for the crime committed, including the calculation of the non-parole period.

The court reviewed the severity and nature of the crime, which involved an intentional act designed to obstruct the course of justice. The appeal focused on whether the original sentence was excessive or inadequate. The court considered the principles of sentencing for such offences, including the need to deter similar conduct, protect the community, and consider the appellant's personal circumstances. The court also examined the proportionality of the sentence in relation to the crime and the appellant's culpability.

Upon reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that while the crime was serious, the original sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the aggregate term of imprisonment of four years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years and four months, was appropriate. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to uphold the integrity of the justice system.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the original sentence, affirming the aggregate term of imprisonment and the non-parole period as set out in the initial judgment. The appeal was thus dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years 6 months with a non parole period of 3 years 4 months.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Edmonds [2020] NSWDC 687
Hearing dates:	6 October 2020
Decision date:	06 November 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years 6 months with a non parole period of 3 years 4 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s319
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Kelly Edmonds (Offender)
Representation:	Mr Kelly (ODPP) Mr Townsend (Solicitor for the offender)
File Number(s):	2019/00360389
Publication restriction:	Nil