Edwards v Police

[2019] NZHC 932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI 2019-441-8

[2019] NZHC 932

BETWEEN

CREDENCE HARLEY EDWARDS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	30 April 2019 (via AVL)
Counsel:	A McPherson for Appellant A V Bryant for Respondent
Judgment:	30 April 2019

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1]                 Mr Edwards appeals a final sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment imposed in relation to a number of convictions.1

[2]                 The lead  offence  was  assault  on  a  person  in  a  domestic  relationship.  Mr McPherson argued with his partner over their children. In the course of this he punched the victim first on her shoulder blade and then to the side of her jaw. This attracted a starting point of nine months’.

[3]                 There was then a seven month uplift imposed in relation to three other offences. The first of these was a further assault on the same victim on a separate occasion. That involved pushing her while she held a baby and spitting at her. Mr Edwards had already been convicted on this. The sentence at the time was to come up for sentencing

1      New Zealand Police; Department of Corrections v Edwards [2019] NZDC 2569.

EDWARDS v NZ POLICE [2019] NZHC 932 [30 April 2019]

if called upon, and the present offending occurred within that narrow pocket during which Mr Edwards needed to refrain from offending.

[4]                 The second offence was breach of a release condition, namely not to associate with the victim. There is a degree of confusion over this. It seems that the condition was revised at one point to allow Mr Edwards to assist with caring for the children. But then seemingly this arrangement was cancelled due to its lack of success. However, on the occasion of the assault that is that Mr Edwards was doing – caring for the children at the victim’s house while she did Christmas shopping. What is beyond doubt is that his presence was a breach (hence the conviction), the victim was complicit in the breach, and the very thing occurred which the condition is designed to prevent – an argument followed by an assault.

[5]                 The third offence was breach of community work sentence. Again, there is some confusion over the details of the offence – how many breaches there were, for example. The criminal history records it as a representative charge and the Crown information is that Mr Edwards was both difficult to get to the starter and then breached several times. Ms McPherson’s information is that there were considerably fewer breaches. It seems clear, however, that in the two months since imposition, only 9–11 hours of the 80 hour sentence had been completed.

[6]                 The cumulative starting points produced  a term  of 16 months’ to which  a  25 per cent discount for a guilty plea was applied.   This left the final sentence at    12 months. The appellant contends that each link was too long producing a manifestly excessive outcome.

[7]                 I consider each link was probably near the top of the available range but agree with the respondent another factor is determinative. This is the fourth separate sentencing occasion for Mr Edwards involving assaults on the same victim. In February 2017, a sentence of 15 months’ was imposed for assault with a weapon x2 and threatening to kill. The offending covered two separate occasions. Then in February 2018, he received a sentence of six months’ imprisonment on two further charges of assaulting the same victim. Finally, in November 2018 there was the assault charge on which he received the sentence of coming up if called.

[8]                 This present occasion being the seventh offence of violence against the same victim is less than two years, I consider a deterrent sentence was required, and that an uplift to reflect the previous offending could be expected. The extent to which any adjustment could be made to the existing sentence is offset by the need for the final sentence to reflect these aspects. The end sentence is therefore not manifestly excessive.

[9]The appeal is dismissed.

Simon France J