Legal Research
Cases
Edmondson v Police

Edmondson v Police

Case [2015] NZHC 3184 14 December 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2014-443-0043 [2015] NZHC 3184

UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal against sentence pursuant to
s 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

BETWEEN

DANIEL GARY EDMONDSON Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 14 December 2015

Appearances:

J M Woodcock on instructions from P M Keegan for Appellant
S J Simpkin for Crown

Judgment:

14 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF M PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice M Peters on 14 December 2015 at 2.15 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date: ...................................

Solicitors: C & M Legal, Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth

Counsel: P M Keegan, New Plymouth

EDMONDSON v POLICE [2015] NZHC 3184 [14 December 2015]

[1] On 6 July 2015, in the District Court at New Plymouth, the Appellant (“Mr Edmondson”) pleaded guilty to one charge of assault with a weapon and one of assault with intent to injure.1 On 7 August 2015, Judge A Roberts sentenced Mr Edmondson to 15 months’ imprisonment.2 Mr Edmondson now appeals, on the
ground that the starting point the Judge adopted was manifestly excessive.3

Background

[2] The charges against Mr Edmondson arise from events on 4 July 2015. That evening Mr Edmondson had been drinking with two male associates. They arrived at the (female) victim’s address at about 7 pm. The summary of facts states:4

At about 7 pm on Saturday 4th July 2015 [Mr Edmondson] arrived at the
victim’s address on Exeter Street, New Plymouth.

He was with two male associates.

When the victim became aware that [Mr Edmondson] was intoxicated she asked him to leave the address as she did not want him to be drinking at her home.

[Mr Edmondson] became hostile and verbally abusive towards the victim.

[Mr Edmondson’s] associates decided to leave the address at this point and offered to take [Mr Edmondson] home.

[Mr Edmondson] refused the offer and his two associates left the address.

[3] After his associates had left, Mr Edmondson pushed the victim onto a sofa. He pulled her hair and elbowed her in the right eye with some force. This constituted the assault with intent to injure.

[4] The victim managed to move to the lounge area, at which point Mr Edmondson went to get a knife from the kitchen and told her that she “could call the Police but that [he] would put a knife to [her] throat faster than the Police could
get there”.5

1      Assault with a weapon carries a maximum penalty for five years’ imprisonment see Crimes Act
1961, s 202C; Assault with intent to injure carries a maximum penalty of three years’
imprisonment see Crimes Act 1961, s 193.
2      R v Edmondson [2015] NZDC 15727
3      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
4      NZ Police Summary of Facts.
5      Ibid.

[5] The victim telephoned the Police. Mr Edmondson attempted to take the telephone by bending her fingers backwards. He then went to the…

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 Edmondson v Police

Details

AGLC: Edmondson v Police [2015] NZHC 3184
Case: [2015] NZHC 3184
Decision Date: 14 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Edmondson v Police, the appellant, Daniel Gary Edmondson, appealed against his sentence of 15 months' imprisonment imposed by Judge Roberts in the District Court at New Plymouth on 7 August 2015. The appellant had pleaded guilty to one charge of assault with a weapon and one of assault with intent to injure. The legal issue before the court was whether the starting point the Judge adopted was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the starting point of 18 months' imprisonment was too high and that 12 months would have been more appropriate. The Crown argued that the starting point was within the proper range and that the sentence should be upheld. The court considered several cases where the starting point had been set at 12 months' imprisonment for similar offences. However, the court also considered the appellant's criminal history, which included convictions for possessing an offensive weapon, assaults on a child with a weapon, and threatening to kill or do violence. The court concluded that the starting point of 18 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive and reduced it to 13 months' imprisonment. The end sentence of 15 months' imprisonment was also considered manifestly excessive and was reduced to 13 months' imprisonment. The appeal was allowed to that extent.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that an appeal against sentence is an appeal against the exercise of discretion and proceeds on an "error principle". The High Court will not intervene if the sentence is within the range justified by accepted sentencing principles. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offending, the appellant's criminal history, and the starting points in other cases with similar offending. The court also considered the fact that the appellant had entered guilty pleas at the first opportunity, which warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court concluded that the starting point of 18 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive and reduced it to 13 months' imprisonment. The end sentence of 15 months' imprisonment was also considered manifestly excessive and was reduced to 13 months' imprisonment. The appeal was allowed to that extent.

Orders