Edwards v Police - [2017] NZHC 2834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2017-441-33 [2017] NZHC 2834

BETWEEN
JASON WADE EDWARDS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 7 November 2017

Appearances:

E J Forster for the Appellant
C C Gullidge for the Respondent

Judgment:

17 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to four charges of breach of a protection order.1 On

1 September 2017, Judge Courtney sentenced Mr Edwards to 12 months’

imprisonment.2

[2] Mr Edwards appeals his sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive and there was an error in calculating the discount for the guilty plea. The Crown opposes the appeal and submits the sentence was within the available range. The Crown accepts, however, that there was an error in the guilty plea calculation,
although submits the effect of this error was minimal.

1 Domestic Violence Act 1995, ss 19, 49(1)(b) and 49(3). Maximum penalty is three years’
imprisonment.
2 New Zealand Police v Edwards [2017] NZDC 19761.

EDWARDS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 2834 [17 November 2017]

Factual background

[3] Mr Edwards and the victim had been in a relationship for approximately 12 years and separated for the last two years. There is a protection order in place against
Mr Edwards, which covers the victim and their four children.

[4] The present offending occurred on 24 and 25 July 2017. On 24 July,

Mr Edwards went to the victim’s address, accused and abused the victim before leaving. He returned again later that evening and abused and intimidated the victim. Police were called and the victim asked for Mr Edwards to be warned and told to stay away for the breach, as one of her children had begged her not to send dad to jail.

[5] In the late morning of 25 July, Mr Edwards, uninvited, arrived again at the victim’s address. Mr Edwards stood over the victim with a closed fist, while abusing her for having another partner. He also abused the victim about having contacted police the previous day. The victim asked Mr Edwards to leave numerous times, however, he refused to do so. The victim managed to escape outside onto the deck of the property, fearing she would be physically hurt. During this time, Mr Edwards made repeated comments about how he was going to do something to her and would burn the house down. Mr Edwards eventually left and was arrested by police a short time later.

[6] Mr Edwards is 36 years of age. He has nine previous offences, including five previous breaches of this same protection order, two convictions for male assaults female, one conviction for assault with intent to injure and one for wilful damage. These offences are all family violence related.

District Court decision

[7] In sentencing Mr Edwards, Judge Courtney highlighted that although there was no violence involved, he did not view this as low-level offending. Mr Edwards repeatedly returned to the property over two days.…

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 [2017] NZHC 2834
Case: [2017] NZHC 2834
Decision Date: 17 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Jason Wade Edwards appeals the sentence imposed by Judge Courtney for four charges of breach of a protection order, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that there was an error in calculating the discount for the guilty plea. The Crown opposes the appeal, arguing that the sentence was within the available range and that the error in the guilty plea calculation was minimal. The court considered the seriousness of the offending, which occurred over two days, involved multiple breaches of the protection order, and included threats to burn the victim's home down. The court found that the starting point of 12 months' imprisonment was within the available range and that the error in the guilty plea calculation should be corrected. The appeal is allowed in part, and the sentence is reduced from 12 months' imprisonment to 11 months' imprisonment.

The court's reasoning was based on the fact that there is no tariff decision for breaches of protection orders, and the court considered the seriousness of the offending and the offender's previous convictions. The court found that the starting point of 12 months' imprisonment was well within the available range and that the error in the guilty plea calculation should be corrected. The court also considered the Crown's argument that the sentence was within the available range and that the error in the guilty plea calculation was minimal. The court found that the starting point and sentence otherwise imposed was well within the available range and appropriate in light of the current offending and the offender's pattern of previous offending towards the same victim. The appeal is allowed in part, and the sentence is reduced from 12 months' imprisonment to 11 months' imprisonment.

Orders