Edwards v R - [2013] NZCA 349

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA146/2013
[2013] NZCA 349

BETWEEN	CHARLES ALEXANDER EDWARDS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	31 July 2013
Court:	Harrison, Panckhurst and Ronald Young JJ
Counsel:	H P Retzlaff for Appellant J M Jelas for Respondent
Judgment:	6 August 2013 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against sentence is allowed.
BThe sentence of six years nine months’ imprisonment is quashed.
CA sentence of five years four months’ imprisonment is imposed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ronald Young J)

Introduction

In August 2010 the appellant, Mr Charles Edwards, and three other men (his co-accused) drove to a house occupied by the complainants: three adults and two young children. The four men had planned to enter the house to resolve a dispute with the occupants about drugs. Mr Edwards was the driver and stayed in the car throughout the incident.
The three co‑accused broke into the house. One of the adults was assaulted. He was punched and struck with a baton. A laptop and an iPod were stolen. Mr Edwards then drove the other three men from the house. The police, who had been called, arrived and pursued the car. It did not immediately stop despite police requests. Eventually the vehicle was stopped by the police.
Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and was sentenced by Judge Andrée Wiltens to six years and nine months’ imprisonment.[1] He says the sentence was manifestly excessive because:
(a)the starting point was too high;
(b)no allowance was made in the sentencing for his lesser involvement in the offending;
(c)no proper allowance was made for mitigation; and
(d)there was an unjust disparity with the other offenders.
[1]R v Edwards DC Manukau CRI-2010-092-12566, 19 February 2013.
The other three offenders were sentenced in this way. Each had a start sentence of eight years’ imprisonment. Mr Pere was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, Mr Gideon was sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment and Mr Belmont was sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment.

Starting point too high

The original indictment contained three counts which all four accused faced: (1) aggravated burglary (Crimes Act 1961, s 232(1)(a)) based on the unlawful entry into the house with the wooden baton as a weapon; (2) aggravated robbery (Crimes Act, s 235(a)) where the aggravating feature was the assault on one of the occupants of the house; and (3) causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to the complainant (Crimes Act, s 188(1)).
After discussion between counsel for Mr Edwards and the Crown a fourth count of aggravated robbery under s 235(b) of the Crimes Act was added. This charged only Mr Edwards with aggravated robbery arising out of the same incident but where the aggravating feature was the presence of the other three accused.
On 11 November 2011 Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to this count and was discharged on the other three counts. The co-accused were all convicted of s 235(a)…

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 R

Details

AGLC: Edwards v R [2013] NZCA 349
Case: [2013] NZCA 349
Decision Date: 6 August 2013 at 9.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Edwards v R, Charles Alexander Edwards appealed against his sentence for aggravated robbery, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appellant and three co-accused had driven to a house occupied by three adults and two young children, intending to resolve a dispute about drugs. The three co-accused broke into the house, assaulted one of the adults, stole a laptop and an iPod, and then fled the scene. Edwards, who had remained in the car throughout the incident, was subsequently arrested and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. The District Court judge sentenced Edwards to six years and nine months’ imprisonment.

The legal issues in the appeal were whether the starting point for the sentence was too high, whether the sentence sufficiently accounted for Edwards' lesser involvement in the offence, whether proper allowance was made for mitigation, and whether there was an unjust disparity with the sentences of the co-offenders. The Court of Appeal found that the starting point for Edwards' sentence was too high as it did not take into account his lesser involvement in the offence. The court agreed that a six-year starting point was appropriate for Edwards given his lack of knowledge of the disguises and weapon used by the co-offenders. The Court of Appeal also found that no reduction in sentence was justified for Edwards' efforts at rehabilitation in prison, given his extensive criminal history and previous failed attempts at rehabilitation. After taking into account all the factors, the Court of Appeal substituted a sentence of five years and four months’ imprisonment for the original sentence of six years and nine months’ imprisonment.

Orders