Legal Research
Cases
Edwards v Police

Edwards v Police

Case [2023] NZHC 2825 10 October 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-407

[2023] NZHC 2825

BETWEEN
CAMERON PAUL EDWARDS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 3 October 2023

Appearances:

J S Kovacevich for Appellant S M Murphy for Respondent

Judgment:

10 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 October 2023 at 3:00 pm

………………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

EDWARDS v POLICE [2023] NZHC 2825 [10 October 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Cameron Edwards pleaded guilty to a representative charge of strangulation.1 He was sentenced to 25 months’ imprisonment by Judge P J Sinclair in the District Court at Auckland on 17 May 2023.2

[2]Mr Edwards appeals this sentence as being manifestly excessive in that:

(a)the starting point was too high; and

(b)there was insufficient discount applied for his guilty plea, the contents of his cultural report, his remorse, his participation in restorative justice and his time spent in custody.

[3] The Court must allow an appeal against sentence if it is satisfied there is an error and a different sentence should be imposed.3 A Court will intervene where the sentence is manifestly excessive,4 but will not engage in “tinkering”.5

[4] The focus is on whether the sentence is within the appropriate range, rather than the process by which the sentence was reached.6

Offending

[5] Mr Edwards and the victim had been in a relationship for six months. On 15 March 2022 they were together at home and argued about the victim not finishing her dinner. Mr Edwards grabbed the victim by the throat and pushed her back against a wall with sufficient force to cause her head to snap forward. He squeezed her neck for approximately 30 seconds before releasing the pressure on her throat.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 189A(b), maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Police v Edwards [2023] NZDC 9596.
3      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 250(2).
4      Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [30]–[35].
5      Maihi v R [2013] NZCA 69 at [21] and Mack v R [2013] NZCA 183 at [16].
6      Tutakangahau v R, above n 4, at [36].

[6] The victim described the force as feeling like a rope burn after she was released, and further stated her jaw hurt and that it hurt to swallow for a couple of days.

[7] On 22 March 2022, Mr Edwards and the victim were together at home. They argued as the victim believed Mr Edwards was cheating on her. Mr Edwards pushed the victim on the bed and knelt on her throat before covering her face with a pillow and pressing down on it, preventing her from breathing. He removed the pillow before applying his hands to her nose and mouth to again prevent her from breathing. He removed his hands to allow her to breathe, then placed his hands over her nose and mouth a second time, preventing her breathing for…

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 Edwards v Police

Details

AGLC: Edwards v Police [2023] NZHC 2825
Case: [2023] NZHC 2825
Decision Date: 10 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cameron Paul Edwards appealed against his 25-month sentence for strangulation, arguing it was manifestly excessive due to an inappropriately high starting point and insufficient discounts for his guilty plea, cultural report, remorse, participation in restorative justice, and time spent in custody. The Court had to determine if the sentence was within the appropriate range or if it was manifestly excessive. Edwards and the victim had been in a relationship for six months and had two incidents of strangulation. The District Court judge imposed a 25-month sentence, starting at three years and applying discounts for personal circumstances, restorative justice, and the guilty plea. The Court found the starting point of three years was justified, considering the domestic setting, vulnerability of the victim, and the prolonged nature of the second incident. The Court also upheld the three-month uplift for prior family harm offences, the 15 per cent discount for personal circumstances and the guilty plea, and rejected the argument that time spent in custody should be considered. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders