Edmonds v R - [2011] NZCA 415

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA422/2011

[2011] NZCA 415

BETWEEN MOWENA TEMOKI EDMONDS
Appellant

AND THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing: 24 August 2011

Court: Harrison, Ronald Young and Venning JJ

Counsel: G W Calver for Appellant
K Laurenson for Respondent

Judgment: 26 August 2011 at 1 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal against sentence is allowed.

BThe sentences of two years three months’ imprisonment, two months of which have been served, and one month imprisonment are quashed.
CA sentence of six months’ home detention is imposed on the following conditions:
(a)the sentence of home detention is to be served at 23 Margate Place, Flaxmere;
(b)upon her release from prison the appellant should immediately travel to Flaxmere and remain at Margate Place until contacted by the Department of Corrections;
(c)the appellant is not to move from that address without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer;
(d)the appellant is to undertake such parental responsibilities as may be considered necessary with the approval of her Probation Officer;

(e) the standard post‑detention conditions apply to the appellant.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ronald Young J)

Introduction

The appellant was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment by Judge Adeane in the District Court at Napier on two charges, a specific count of receiving stolen property and one of conspiring with a co‑offender, Mr Andrews, over a period of five months to receive stolen property.[1]
[1] R v Andrews DC Napier CRI-2009-020-3923, 24 June 2011.
The appellant’s sole ground of appeal is that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle because the Judge failed to take into account the appellant’s co‑operation with the Police.

Facts

The specific charge of receiving involved the accused’s possession and sale of a sapphire and diamond ring and gold chain. The appellant sold the ring to a shop in Napier but subsequent investigations revealed that the ring was stolen.
As to the conspiracy, from April 2009 to August 2009 there were a large number of daylight burglaries of residential properties in Hastings and Napier. In July 2009 the appellant told the Police about the burglaries her co‑offender, Mr Andrews, was committing. The appellant and Mr Andrews had been in an intermittent domestic relationship of some duration. As a result of the information the appellant gave to the Police search warrants were obtained which resulted in the location of a large amount of stolen property. One of the search warrants related to the appellant’s own home. There, a large amount of property stolen from 27 individual residential properties where burglaries had been committed was recovered. The items found included televisions, cameras, electronic items, jewellery, hunting gear, boots, telephones, makeup, electronic games, clothing and luggage.
The Crown case was that Mr Andrews had used the appellant’s house to store a large amount of the stolen property. Some of the items in the appellant’s possession were gifts from Mr Andrews that the appellant knew were stolen.

District Court Sentencing

Judge Adeane…

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 R

Details

AGLC: Edmonds v R [2011] NZCA 415
Case: [2011] NZCA 415
Decision Date: 26 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal against sentence by Mowena Temoki Edmonds, who was originally sentenced by Judge Adeane in the District Court at Napier. Edmonds was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment for her involvement in receiving stolen property and conspiracy with her co-offender, Mr Andrews, over a five-month period. The appellant's sole ground of appeal was that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle because the Judge failed to take into account her cooperation with the Police.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the appellant's cooperation with the Police warranted a discount in her sentence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The court found that the Judge erred in failing to give any discount for the appellant's assistance to the Police, and that her plea of guilty and her assistance to the Police justified a deduction of 33 per cent from the Judge's starting sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment. The Crown submitted that if the sentence was reduced to two years’ or less imprisonment on appeal, they did not oppose a sentence of home detention for the appellant.

The court found that the sentence of two years three months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The sentences of two years three months’ imprisonment, two months of which have been served, and one month imprisonment are quashed. The court imposed a sentence of six months’ home detention on the conspiracy charge and two months’ home detention on the receiving charge (concurrent) upon certain conditions, including that the sentence of home detention is to be served at 23 Margate Place, Flaxmere, and the appellant is not to move from that address without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer.

Orders