Edwards v Police - [2017] NZHC 200

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV2016-404-000245 [2017] NZHC 200

BETWEEN
CAMERON PAUL EDWARDS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 7 February 2017

Counsel:

E Burton for Appellant
A Park for Respondent

Judgment:

17 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 February 2017 at 4.45 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors / Counsel: Meredith Connell, Auckland
Ella Burton, Barrister, Auckland

CAMERON PAUL EDWARDS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 200 [17 February 2017]

[1] The appellant, Cameron Edwards, received cumulative sentences of five months’ imprisonment and 23 months’ imprisonment. He appeals against the total sentence of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment on the ground it is manifestly excessive.

Factual background

[2] The offences for which Mr Edwards was sentenced span a considerable period of time. They are also different in character. These factors led the sentencing Judge to group the offences into two categories and then to impose cumulative sentences for each group of offences. There is no quarrel with the Judge’s approach in this regard, and as I agree with it I propose to maintain the two groups of offences.

Family violence offences

[3] These offences arise from Mr Edwards’ conduct towards his former partner

CL. Each is dealt with in chronological order.

[4] On 31 August 2015 Mr Edwards posted a threatening comment on his Facebook page in respect of CL and their daughter. Mr Edwards was initially charged with two charges of speaking threateningly and one charge of wilful trespass. He first appeared in the District Court on 10 September 2015. On 20
October 2015 when he appeared in the District Court one of the charges of speaking threateningly and the charge of wilful trespass were withdrawn. Mr Edwards then pleaded guilty to the remaining charge of speaking threateningly.

[5] Mr Edwards was served with a temporary protection order on 3 September

2015. On 6 September 2015, he was charged with breaching this protection order following an incident involving CL when he raised his right arm while standing in front of her. He was also charged with speaking threateningly and wilful trespass. His first appearance on those charges was also on 10 September 2015. When he appeared again on 20 October 2015 he pleaded guilty to the charge of breaching a protection order. The other two charges were withdrawn.

[6] On 14 September 2015 Mr Edwards appeared in the District Court on a charge of breaching his post-detention conditions prohibiting him from associating with CL. He pleaded guilty to the charge on 20 October 2015.

[7] On 6 December 2015, Mr Edwards entered CL’s home. There was an exchange between him and CL during which CL became afraid that he was going to remove their daughter from her home. CL grabbed Mr Edwards’ clothing, inadvertently scratched his neck, and attempted to punch him. He then bit her finger. He was initially charged with wilful trespass, 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 [2017] NZHC 200
Case: [2017] NZHC 200
Decision Date: 17 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cameron Edwards appeals against his sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive. He argues that insufficient discount was given for his young age, rehabilitative efforts, and remorse. Alternatively, he contends that the totality principle was not applied correctly to reduce the overall sentence. The court examined the sentencing notes and concluded that insufficient allowance was given for Mr Edwards’ personal mitigating factors. The court found that a discount of 10 percent for personal mitigating factors was warranted. The appeal was allowed in part, and the sentences on certain charges were set aside and replaced with sentences of lesser duration.

Orders