Edwards v The Queen - [2017] NZCA 132

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA408/2016
[2017] NZCA 132

BETWEEN	DEBBIE NORMA EDWARDS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	8 March 2017
Court:	Winkelmann, Woodhouse and Collins JJ
Counsel:	V L Thorpe for the Appellant E J Hoskin for the Respondent
Judgment:	26 April 2017 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal out of time is granted.
BThe appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woodhouse J)

Debbie Norma Edwards pleaded guilty in the Gisborne District Court to one charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine. She was sentenced by Judge Cathcart to imprisonment for 6 years 4 months.[1] Ms Edwards appeals against sentence.

Leave to appeal out of time

[1]R v Edwards [2016] NZDC 9915 at [48].

The notice of appeal was filed out of time. The reasons are adequately explained and there is no opposition from the Crown to leave being granted to appeal out of time. Leave is granted accordingly.

The offending

Ms Edwards pleaded guilty to conspiring to supply methamphetamine between September 2012 and October 2013. Over this period Ms Edwards obtained approximately 822 grams of methamphetamine from Auckland on 22 occasions. All but approximately 56 grams was sold by Ms Edwards to customers in and around Gisborne. The conspiracy also involved Ms Edwards making plans with a co‑offender to purchase for $400,000 one kilogram of methamphetamine sourced from China. Ms Edwards was arrested not long after preliminary steps had been taken to implement that plan.

The District Court sentence

The Judge adopted what may be called a “provisional starting point” of 11 years’ imprisonment for the 822 grams, assessed as if the offence was a completed offence. On that basis, the offending was in band 4 of R v Fatu, with a range of 10 years to life imprisonment for commercial dealing involving 500 grams or more of methamphetamine.[2] This starting point was increased by 6 months for the conspiracy to procure the one kilogram of methamphetamine.[3] The total of 11 years 6 months’ imprisonment was reduced by 12 months because it was a conspiracy, not a completed offence.[4] The starting point for the conspiracy was, therefore, imprisonment for 10 years 6 months.
[2]R v Fatu [2006] 2 NZLR 72 (CA) at [34].
[3]R v Edwards, above n 1, at [24].
[4]At [28].
The Judge then recorded the following adjustments:
(a)An increase of 12 months for previous offending and because the conspiracy was committed while Ms Edwards was on parole.[5]
(b)A reduction of 17 months for a total of 20 months spent on restrictive bail.[6]
(c)A reduction of what amounted to 11 months for efforts while on bail at Odyssey House to free herself of a methamphetamine addiction, and a further reduction of 6 months for voluntary community work and remorse.[7]
[5]At [33].
[6]At [36].
[7]At [43].
The Judge recorded the result at this point as imprisonment for 8 years 6 months.[8] He then deducted 20 per cent for the guilty plea…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Edwards v The Queen [2017] NZCA 132
Case: [2017] NZCA 132
Decision Date: 26 April 2017 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Debbie Norma Edwards appealed against her sentence of imprisonment for conspiring to supply methamphetamine, with the appeal focusing on the sentence imposed by Judge Cathcart in the Gisborne District Court. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, consisting of Winkelmann, Woodhouse, and Collins JJ. The appellant was represented by V L Thorpe, while E J Hoskin appeared for the respondent.

The appeal raised three issues: whether the sentencing process was flawed due to the Judge predetermining the end point of the sentence, if the Judge wrongly considered that he was bound to give primacy to principles of denunciation and deterrence, and if there were inadequate reductions of sentence for efforts Ms Edwards had taken to free herself of her methamphetamine addiction, voluntary community work she had undertaken, and remorse. The court examined the arithmetical errors in the sentencing process and the Judge’s statement about the importance of deterrence and denunciation. The court also considered the weight the Judge gave to the particular personal circumstances identified, including rehabilitation efforts, community work, and remorse.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing process was not flawed, as the Judge’s statement about the importance of deterrence had the authority of the Supreme Court in R v Jarden. The court also noted that the Judge expressly recognised that some weight could be given to the sentencing objective of rehabilitation in appropriate cases. The court was satisfied that the weight the Judge gave to the personal circumstances identified was adequate, as the total reduction for all personal circumstances was 36 months, which is substantial. The court concluded that there was no error justifying intervention by this Court.

Leave to appeal out of time was granted, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders