R v Edwards

The appellant, Edwards, appealed against her convictions and sentence on various grounds. She was convicted of five counts of fraud by the District Court, after she had dishonestly sold horses by making false representations about their age, health, temperament, and other qualities. Edwards used several different names and claimed a fictional person made the sales without her knowledge. She argued that the trial judge erred in refusing her no case to answer submission, which was based on the absence of continuity evidence connecting the horses transported to the horses sold. Edwards also argued that the verdicts were unreasonable because of the drought, the complainants' failure to inspect the horses, a lack of expert evidence, and other inconsistencies. The court had to decide whether the trial judge erred in refusing the no case to answer submission and whether the verdicts were unreasonable.

The court found that there was a solid body of evidence supporting the prosecution case. The trial judge had correctly refused the no case to answer submission. The jury was not required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the horses transported were the same as those sold. The evidence showed that the appellant had made false representations to induce the sale of the horses. The court found that the trial judge had given proper directions to the jury regarding the voice identification evidence, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the verdicts were not unreasonable, as the jury had been properly directed and there was sufficient evidence to support the verdicts.

In relation to the sentence, the court found that the compensation orders ought to be set aside due to the real prospect of the appellant defaulting on payment. The court also found that the original sentence was manifestly excessive, given the consequences for the appellant’s daughters. The court allowed the appeal against sentence and varied the sentence by fixing the appellant’s parole release date at 25 November 2011.

ORDERS:
1. The appeal against convictions is dismissed.
2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.
3. The appeal against sentence is allowed.
4. The sentence imposed in the District Court is varied by fixing the date upon which the appellant is to be released on parole at 25 November 2011.