Edmond v The King - [2024] NZHC 1182

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY SS 203 AND 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

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

CRI-2023-476-18

[2024] NZHC 1182

BETWEEN
MARK ANDREW EDMOND

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 9 April 2024

Appearances:

T J Jackson for Appellant

S M H McManus for Crown

Judgment:

13 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 May 2024 at 3 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: .

EDMOND v R [2024] NZHC 1182 [13 May 2024]

[1] Mark Edmond was found guilty following a Judge alone trial in the Timaru District Court1 of two charges of offering to supply methamphetamine,2 a representative charge of supplying that drug,3 and failing to comply with a search obligation.4 He appeals his convictions on the basis of alleged errors by the trial Judge which he maintains have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Background

[2] In June 2021, the police commenced an investigation into alleged methamphetamine dealing in the South Canterbury region. One of the persons targeted was a woman by the name of Shania Aitken.5 Analysis of her phone data indicated her involvement in the trafficking of methamphetamine and frequent contact with Mr Edmond. This, in turn, led to analysis of his text messages and call data.

The alleged offending

[3] It was the Crown’s case that between 14 May and 24 June 2021, Mr Edmond had supplied Ms Aitken with methamphetamine on at least 11 occasions. Mr Edmond would meet with Ms Aitken for the purpose of supplying the methamphetamine and collecting payment. The representative charge of supplying methamphetamine reflected this activity.

[4] The two discrete charges of offering to supply methamphetamine were also based on electronic communications. On the evening of 2 June 2021, Mr Edmond received a text message from an associate asking if he had “anything” as what he had was nearly gone. Mr Edmond responded by saying he would check but that he thought he did. He messaged the associate that he “gotta have heaps of dollars” and to call in around 9 pm. The associate responded by stating he had a “G” on him and would see him at 9 pm.

1      R v Edmond [2023] NZDC 7968.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c) and (2) — maximum penalty life imprisonment. Charges 1 and 2.
3      Section 6(1)(c) and (2) — maximum penalty life imprisonment. Charge 3.
4      Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178 — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment. Charge 4.
5      Ms Aitken was also know by the name Shania Hayes.

[5] On 13 June 2021, Ms Aitken text Mr Edmond, “Did the tooth fairy arrive”, to which he replied, “Na but can shout u a sesh if u want”. Ms Aitken replied, “Na that’s a pain for ya and make me want…

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 Edmond v The King

Details

AGLC: Edmond v The King [2024] NZHC 1182
Case: [2024] NZHC 1182
Decision Date: 13 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mark Edmond appeals against his convictions on drug-related charges and a charge of failing to comply with a search obligation. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Timaru Registry. Edmond was found guilty of offering to supply methamphetamine, supplying that drug, and failing to comply with a search obligation. Edmond's appeal is based on alleged errors by the trial Judge which he claims have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Edmond's first ground of appeal is that the trial Judge erred in declaring a witness, Shania Aitken, hostile and permitting the Crown to cross-examine her on her previous statement to police. The Court found that Aitken's evidence was inconsistent with her earlier statement and that she exhibited an intention to be unhelpful to the Crown. The Court held that the trial Judge was correct in declaring Aitken hostile and allowing the Crown to cross-examine her. The Court also found that any error in this regard would not have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Edmond's second ground of appeal is that the trial Judge erred in permitting Detective Sergeant Simpson to give expert evidence on the ultimate issue. The Court found that while some of the opinions expressed by Detective Sergeant Simpson went to the ultimate issue, the evidence was substantially helpful to the Court. The Court held that the trial Judge was correct in admitting the expert evidence, and that any error in this regard would not have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Edmond's third ground of appeal is that the trial Judge erred in finding that Edmond did not have a reasonable excuse for not providing access to a mobile phone during a search. The Court found that Edmond's confusion and surprise at the request for access did not amount to a reasonable excuse. The Court held that the trial Judge was correct in finding this charge proved.

Having concluded that none of the grounds of appeal have given rise to a miscarriage of justice, the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Orders