Edmonds v R - [2020] NZHC 662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-419-12

[2020] NZHC 662

BETWEEN
TUI KATHLEEN EDMONDS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 31 March 2020 (by telephone)

Counsel:

G Boot for Appellant

A S Alcock for Respondent

Judgment:

31 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 March 2020 at 3:00 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Gavin Boot Law, Hamilton, for Appellant Crown Solicitor, Hamilton, for Respondent

EDMONDS v R [2020] NZHC 662 [31 March 2020]

Introduction

[1] Ms Edmonds appeals her sentence of one year and nine months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge SD Otene on 23 January 2020.1 Her contention is that the Judge should have sentenced her to a term of home detention.

Background

[2] Ms Edmonds pleaded guilty to a charge of driving a motor vehicle causing death while under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of her vehicle.2 The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment. Ms Edmonds also pleaded guilty to a charge of refusing to permit a blood specimen to be taken without delay after having been requested to do so by a medical officer.3 The maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment.

[3] The summary of facts records that on 21 April 2019 Ms Edmonds consumed alcohol with her friend, Mrs Emery, at a rugby club. At about 8:35 pm Ms Edmonds drove away from the rugby club in her car, accompanied by Mrs Emery. As she approached a 65 kmh advisory right-hand bend, her car went towards the left-hand side and on to the gravel shoulder. Ms Edmonds attempted to correct the vehicle by steering towards the right – that caused the vehicle to begin turning in a clockwise direction. Ms Edmonds attempted to regain control by steering sharply to the left, which caused her car to cross both the southern and northern lanes before sliding back into the southbound lane. Ms Edmonds’s car then left the road, went down a short bank, struck a fence post and rolled on to the passenger’s side. The impact of the crash broke Mrs Emery’s neck and she died at the scene.

[4] When the police arrived Ms Edmonds refused to give any details to them. She had herself sustained moderate injuries and was taken to hospital for treatment. At the hospital Ms Edmonds was required to provide a medical blood sample for alcohol and drug analysis. Ms Edmonds refused to provide a sample, swearing at the medical professionals.

1      R v Edmonds [2020] NZDC 1224.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 61(2)(a).
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 60(1)(b).

[5] A blood sample was taken from Ms Edmonds as part of her medical treatment. Analysis of that sample showed a blood alcohol content of approximately 245 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, almost five times the legal blood alcohol limit.

[6] Ms Edmonds has relevant previous convictions. In 2002 she…

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 [2020] NZHC 662
Case: [2020] NZHC 662
Decision Date: 31 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Ms Edmonds, appealed her sentence of one year and nine months' imprisonment, imposed by Judge Otene, arguing that she should have been sentenced to a term of home detention. Ms Edmonds pleaded guilty to driving a motor vehicle causing death while under the influence of alcohol and refusing to provide a blood specimen. She had a high blood alcohol content of 245 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood and a history of previous convictions for driving offences.

The legal issue was whether the Judge made an error in imposing a sentence of imprisonment rather than home detention. The court considered the relevant case law and noted that the decision to commute a short-term sentence of imprisonment to a sentence of home detention is a discretionary one, requiring a Judge to evaluate all the relevant circumstances and to reach a decision as to what is appropriate in order to do justice. The court found that the Judge took into account the relevant circumstances and did not take into account any irrelevant circumstances. The Judge considered carefully the weight to be given to the factors personal to Ms Edmonds, including her medical condition.

The court concluded that the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment rather than home detention was not manifestly excessive in this case. The court found that the sentence was appropriate to denounce Ms Edmonds's conduct and deter others from similar offending, particularly given her high blood alcohol content and the fact that she caused the death of Mrs Emery. The court dismissed the appeal.

The court noted that the sentence imposed by the Judge was one year and nine months' imprisonment, which was not manifestly excessive. The court also found that the Judge made appropriate allowances for the mitigating factors personal to Ms Edmonds, including her medical condition. The court concluded that the Judge did not make an error in imposing a sentence of imprisonment rather than home detention, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders