Legal Research
Cases
Edwards v Police

Edwards v Police

Case [2018] NZHC 1882 27 July 2018

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-2018-404-139

[2018] NZHC 1882

BETWEEN
CORRIE JESSIE EDWARDS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 25 June 2018

Appearances:

T A Fitzgibbon for Appellant B A Keown for Respondent

Judgment:

27 July 2018

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 July 2018 at 11:30 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

EDWARDS v POLICE [2018] NZHC 1882 [27 July 2018]

Introduction

[1] Corrie Edwards was sentenced in the Auckland District Court to two years and two months’ imprisonment on two charges of burglary and one charge of unlawful possession of an imitation firearm.1 He now appeals against that sentence on the grounds that the Judge adopted an excessive starting point and gave insufficient credit for time spent on electronically monitored bail.

The offending

[2] The first burglary took place at a residential address in Hamilton sometime between 3.00pm on 10 December 2016 and 6.30pm on 11 December 2016. The occupant had left the house locked and secure. Mr Edwards entered by smashing a glass door at the back of the house, and conducted what is described in the summary of facts as a “messy search” of all the bedrooms. He took numerous electrical items, books, jewellery and men’s clothing. His DNA was subsequently found in the master bedroom.

[3] The second burglary took place at a residential address in Grey Lynn, Auckland, sometime between 1.00pm and 9.15pm on 15 February 2017. Mr Edwards took several items including silver cutlery, a sterling silver tea set, clothing and video tapes. The estimated total value of the property stolen is $650. When police carried out inquiries at the address, they found the toilet window had been smashed and a rubbish bin was positioned beneath that window. They also found a blood smear on the interior wall of the toilet, which returned a positive result for Mr Edwards.

[4] The police located and arrested Mr Edwards at the Work and Income office in Manurewa on 17 March 2017. On searching him, they found an airgun in his possession.

[5] Mr Edwards initially entered a plea of not guilty to the first burglary, in March 2017. He was released on electronically monitored bail on 2 May 2017 and complied with his bail conditions. On 24 August 2017, he pleaded guilty to the first charge of

1 Police v Edwards [2018] NZDC 9313.

burglary. In November 2017, he also pleaded guilty to the second burglary and the possession of an imitation firearm charge.

Mr Edwards’ personal circumstances

[6] Mr Edwards is 34 years old. He was deported from Australia after being convicted of breaking and entering, and arrived in New Zealand on 23 October 2016. His Australian criminal conviction history has not been made available to me, but the pre-sentence reports record that he has multiple convictions for violence, robbery, burglary, wilful damage,…

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 [2018] NZHC 1882
Case: [2018] NZHC 1882
Decision Date: 27 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Corrie Edwards appeals his two-year and two-month sentence imposed by the Auckland District Court for two counts of burglary and one count of unlawful possession of an imitation firearm. The appeal hinges on the contention that the starting point for the second burglary was excessive and that insufficient credit was given for time spent on electronically monitored (EM) bail. The central legal issue is whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive.

The High Court examined whether the starting point for the second burglary, which was set at 24 months, was appropriate. The Court noted that while the District Court was correct to consider the burglary of a residential dwelling and the fact that the offence was committed while on bail as serious aggravating factors, the second burglary was at the lower end of the scale in terms of seriousness due to the value of the property stolen and the time of the offence. The Court found that a starting point of 21 to 22 months would have been more appropriate. However, this slight overestimation was balanced by the global starting point of three years for the totality of the offending and the generous guilty plea discounts.

Regarding the credit for time spent on EM bail, the Court held that while there is no fixed rule for determining the discount, the Judge’s decision to give a five-month credit for 12 months on EM bail was within the range of acceptable judicial discretion. The Court noted that Mr Edwards had considerable freedom of movement under his bail conditions, which allowed for church attendance, related activities, and a five-day absence for his daughter’s birth.

Ultimately, the High Court found that the sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, and the appeal was dismissed.

This judgment underscores the importance of balancing aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing, while also highlighting the discretion afforded to sentencing judges in determining the credit for time spent on EM bail.

Orders