Edmonds v Police - [2014] NZHC 3238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-419-50 [2014] NZHC 3238

BETWEEN
STANTON HAPETA EDMONDS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 16 December 2014

Counsel:

C D Bean for Appellant
T A Needham for Respondent

Judgment:

16 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

Solicitors/Counsel: Charles Bean (Hamilton) for Appellant
Almao Douch (Hamilton) for Respondent

EDMONDS v POLICE [2014] NZHC 3238 [16 December 2014]

Introduction

[1] Mr Edmonds appeals against the sentence of Judge MLSF Burnett handed down in the District Court at Hamilton on 24 June 2014. The appeal is out of time. However, the respondent takes no issue with this, and I do not think I should either. The appeal may proceed.

[2] The Judge sentenced Mr Edmonds to four years’ imprisonment on drugs charges and a cumulative sentence of three months’ imprisonment for assaults on two prison officers. Mr Bean for Mr Edmonds submits that the Judge failed to give credit where it was due, but in any event the end sentence is manifestly excessive.

The law

[3] An appeal against sentence must be allowed if the Court is satisfied there has been an error in the sentence imposed for any reason and that a different sentence should be imposed. The principles behind the law are well known, and not changed by the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. A sentence will be manifestly excessive if it is substantially or significantly more severe than it ought to have been having regard to the seriousness of the offending and the culpability of the offender.

The Judge’s sentence

[4] The drugs charges were:

CHARGE PARTICULARS MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1975 MAXIMUM PENALTY

1 Offering to sell cannabis 6(1)(e) and 6(2)(c) 8 years imprisonment

2 Selling cannabis 6(1)(e) and 6(2)(c) 8 years imprisonment

3
Offering to supply

methamphetamine
6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a) Life imprisonment

4
Supplying

methamphetamine
6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a) Life imprisonment

5 Cultivating cannabis 9(1) and 9(2) 7 years imprisonment

[5] A sentence indication had been given and refused. Pleas of guilty were entered after the Crown indicated it would not proceed on charges of conspiring to supply cannabis and conspiring to supply methamphetamine. The amount of

methamphetamine offered or supplied was approximately 4.88 grams. The cannabis offending occurred on 13 separate occasions and involved 347 grams.

[6] Mr Edmonds has an extensive criminal history but no relevant drugs convictions.

[7] The Judge was not impressed by Mr Bean’s submissions that credit should be given for remorse and for Mr Edmonds’s personal drug addiction. In the Judge’s view, the offences of dealing in drugs are not mitigated by personal drug addiction and here Mr Edmonds’s motivation was financial gain. So far as remorse is concerned, the Judge did not accept there was genuine remorse on the material before her and noted that continued violent offending rather went against it.

[8] The Judge found the methamphetamine dealing to fall within band one of R v Fatu and adopted a starting point of three-and-a-half years.1 The cannabis offending, in the Judge’s view,…

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 Edmonds v Police

Details

AGLC: Edmonds v Police [2014] NZHC 3238
Case: [2014] NZHC 3238
Decision Date: 16 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Stanton Hapeta Edmonds appealed against the sentence handed down by Judge MLSF Burnett in the District Court at Hamilton on 24 June 2014. Edmonds was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for drugs charges and an additional three months' imprisonment for assaulting two prison officers. The appeal was out of time, but the respondent did not object to this, and the Court decided to proceed with the appeal. The central issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the Judge had erred in her assessment of factors such as remorse and rehabilitation prospects.

The Court examined the principles governing sentencing, noting that an appeal against sentence should be allowed if there has been an error in the sentence imposed for any reason. A sentence is considered manifestly excessive if it is substantially or significantly more severe than it should have been, considering the seriousness of the offending and the culpability of the offender. The Court reviewed the Judge's approach to sentencing, including her consideration of Edmonds's criminal history, which comprised 66 convictions since he was 14 years old. The Judge had rejected arguments for discounts based on remorse and rehabilitation prospects, finding that Edmonds's motivation was financial gain rather than personal drug addiction, and that there was no genuine remorse.

The Court concluded that while the Judge could have adopted a slightly lower starting point for the methamphetamine offending, the overall starting point of five years for the drug charges was on the high side. The Judge had also appropriately considered the totality of the offending, imposing an uplift of 18 months. However, the Court found that an additional uplift of four months should have been applied to account for Edmonds's extensive criminal history, bringing the total sentence to four years and nine months. After accounting for the 20% reduction for pleas of guilty, the Court determined that the sentence was within the range available to the Judge, albeit at the upper end. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders