Edwards v Police - [2018] NZHC 340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2017-404-475

[2018] NZHC 340

BETWEEN
TRACEY LEIGH EDWARDS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 February 2018

Counsel:

H Cheeseman for Appellant K Li for Respondent

Judgment:

7 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 March 2018 at 3.00 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
H Cheeseman, Barrister, Manukau Crown Solicitor, Manukau

EDWARDS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 340 [7 March 2018]

[1] The appellant, Tracey Edwards, was convicted in the District Court of the following charges:1
(a)One charge of assault with intent to injure;2 and
(b)One charge of assault with a weapon.3

[2] Ms Edwards was sentenced on 12 December 2017 to 80 hours’ community work. She now appeals against her convictions.

Factual background

[3] The prosecution case against Ms Edwards was as follows. At around 9pm on 2 August 2015, Ms Edwards was at home with the victim, Ms Rawiri. Ms Rawiri is Ms Edwards’ daughter. Ms Rawiri was sleeping in the bedroom with her six-month old son. Ms Edwards was drinking alcohol in the living room.

[4] Ms Edwards came into the bedroom and verbally abused Ms Rawiri. She then returned to the living room and carried on drinking. A short time later, Ms Edwards came to the doorway of the bedroom and challenged Ms Rawiri to a fight. Ms Rawiri remained in the bedroom with her son.

[5] Some time passed. Ms Rawiri left the bedroom to get a bottle for her son. She was confronted in the hallway by her mother. Ms Edwards grabbed her daughter by the collar and dragged her to the floor, causing her bra to rip.

[6] Ms Edwards then grabbed Ms Rawiri by the hair and dragged her into the kitchen, punching her in the face as she did so. Once in the kitchen, Ms Edwards banged Ms Rawiri’s head into the lino floor and continued punching her in the face.

[7] At some point, Ms Rawiri managed to escape the kitchen. She fled into a bedroom and called the police. Ms Edwards pursued her daughter around the house as she was on the phone and continued to verbally abuse her.

1      Police v Edwards [2017] NZDC 14499.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 193; maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 202C; maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.

[8] Ms Edwards picked up a metal pole from a vacuum cleaner and cornered Ms Rawiri in the laundry. She swung the pole at Ms Rawiri, striking her three times in the upper body. She stopped when Ms Rawiri’s brother intervened.

[9] As a result of the attack, Ms Rawiri sustained bruising to the forehead, right eye and temple. She also received two small cuts on the back of her hand.

[10] A formal written statement was taken from Ms Rawiri at 10:02pm in which she provided details of the attack.

Procedural history

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 340
Case: [2018] NZHC 340
Decision Date: 7 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Edwards v Police, Tracey Edwards appealed against her convictions for assault with intent to injure and assault with a weapon, arguing that the admission of a hearsay statement by the District Court Judge constituted a miscarriage of justice. The appeal hinged on the admissibility of a statement made by the victim, Ms Rawiri, who was unavailable to testify due to repeated failures to appear in court. The High Court found that the admission of the hearsay statement was flawed due to procedural irregularities and an inadequate assessment of prejudice against the appellant. Specifically, the Court noted the absence of prior written notice and insufficient consideration of the risk of unfair prejudice resulting from the inability to cross-examine Ms Rawiri. Despite these errors, the Court found that the remaining prosecution evidence was sufficient to support convictions for common assault. The Court thus set aside the original convictions and substituted them with convictions for common assault, maintaining the original sentence of 80 hours’ community work.

The Court's decision underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal trials, particularly the requirements for admitting hearsay evidence. It also highlights the necessity for a balanced assessment of probative value against the risk of unfair prejudice. While the Court acknowledged the significant prejudice caused by the procedural errors, it concluded that the remaining evidence was compelling enough to uphold the appellant's guilt for the lesser offences. This ruling serves as a reminder to trial judges of their duty to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and to carefully weigh the admissibility of evidence in light of its potential impact on the fairness of the proceedings.

Orders