Eddington v The King - [2024] NZHC 3193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CRI-2024-476-18 CRI-2024-476-19

CRI-2024-476-20 [2024] NZHC 3193

BETWEEN
JAMES WILLIAM EDDINGTON

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 30 October 2024

Appearances:

T A McRae for Appellant

C J Mitchelmore and S M H McManus for Respondent

Judgment:

31 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2024 at 11.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

EDDINGTON v R [2024] NZHC 3193 [31 October 2024]

Introduction

[1] On 6 September 2024, Mr Eddington was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment on the following charges:1

(a)breach of release conditions (x 2);2

(b)possession of class C controlled drug (cannabis);3

(c)possession of a methamphetamine pipe;4

(d)possession of a knife;5

(e)possession of medicines;6 and

(f)breach of bail.7

Facts

[2] On 12 July 2023 the appellant was released on parole from Christchurch Men’s Prison where he had been serving a term of imprisonment for which he was sentenced in 2016.8 On the day of his release he was fully inducted into the requirements of his parole, including the special condition not to possess, use or consume alcohol, controlled drugs or psychoactive substances except for controlled drugs prescribed by a health a professional.

1      Police v Eddington [2024] NZDC 21557.
2      Parole Act 2002, s 71(1) — maximum penalty: sentence of imprisonment of one year or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 7(1)(a) and (2) — maximum penalty: sentence of imprisonment of one year or a fine not exceeding $500.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 13(1)(a) and (3) — maximum penalty: sentence of imprisonment of one year or a fine not exceeding $500.
5      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 13A — maximum penalty: sentence of imprisonment of three months or a fine not exceeding $2,000.
6      Medicines Act 1981, ss 46 and 78 — maximum penalty: sentence of imprisonment of three months or a fine not exceeding $500.
7      Bail Act 2000, s 24 — maximum sentence of imprisonment of three months or a fine not exceeding
$1,000.
8      R v Eddington [2016] NZHC 434.

[3] The appellant was recalled to prison and then, when released on 1 December 2023, he was again inducted into the requirements of his parole order.

[4] On 24 June 2024, the appellant was instructed to report to the Transport Drug Detection Agency van for drug and alcohol testing. Mr Eddington reported as required and completed a urine sample for alcohol and drug testing. The sample was tested as invalid and synthetic. This gave rise to the first charge of breaching parole conditions.

[5] On 9 July 2024 Mr Eddington explained to Probation that his address was no longer suitable and he was of no fixed abode. They acknowledged that and gave him an instruction to report twice weekly, with his first report to be on 12 July 2024. Mr Eddington did not report…

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 Eddington v The King

Details

AGLC: Eddington v The King [2024] NZHC 3193
Case: [2024] NZHC 3193
Decision Date: 31 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, James William Eddington appealed against his six-month imprisonment sentence for multiple charges, including breach of parole conditions and possession of controlled substances. The appeal was heard on 30 October 2024, with T A McRae representing the appellant and C J Mitchelmore and S M H McManus representing the respondent. The judgment was delivered by Dunningham J on 31 October 2024. The central issue was whether the District Court's starting point for sentencing was manifestly excessive and if a discount for rehabilitative prospects should have been considered. The appellant argued that the starting point was excessive, citing cases with lower starting points and highlighting his rehabilitative progress and support from family and community. The respondent contended that the starting point was appropriate, given the appellant's history of non-compliance with parole conditions and relapse into drug use. The court found that the starting point was not manifestly excessive, as the appellant's breaches of parole conditions were serious and deliberate, and his history of non-compliance with release conditions warranted a firm response. Although the appellant had made some rehabilitative efforts, his poor response to prior programmes and repeated relapse into drug use did not justify a discount for rehabilitative prospects. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders