Edwards v The Queen - [2019] NZHC 2755

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI 2019-419-000071

[2019] NZHC 2755

KARLA RACHAEL EDWARDS

v

THE QUEEN

Hearing: 24 October 2019

Appearances:

K Burroughs for the Appellant K C Whyte for the Crown

Judgment:

29 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 October 2019 at 3.00pm

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
K Burroughs, Hamilton Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

EDWARDS v R [2019] NZHC 2755 [29 October 2019]

Introduction

[1] On 14 June 2019, Karla Rachel Edwards received a sentence indication from Judge PR Connell in regard to one charge of assault with intent to rob,1 and one charge of aggravated robbery.2 Ms Edwards subsequently pleaded guilty to those charges. On 4 September 2019, Judge Connell sentenced Ms Edwards to four years and eight months’ imprisonment. Ms Edwards now appeals this sentence.

[2] When convictions were entered on the above two charges, convictions for accessing a computer system and for discharging a fire arm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm were also entered. These additional convictions were entered erroneously as they had been previously withdrawn. Ms Edwards appeals against these convictions. The Crown does not oppose that appeal.

Offending

[3] Ms Edwards pleaded guilty to charges of assault with intent to rob and aggravated robbery, both of which related to offending that took place in 2015.

[4] The offending involved a number of co-offenders: Tao McRae, Dylan Woolrich and Moanaroa Kidwell. Mr Kidwell was Ms Edwards’ ex-partner and the father of her children.

[5] On 16 March 2015, Mr Kidwell advertised a motorcycle for sale on Facebook. The victim of the offending arranged to meet with Mr Kidwell the following day to purchase the motorcycle. The victim was lured to a semi-rural address in Kirikiriroa (Hamilton). Ms Edwards drove the party to the address, with Mr Kidwell bringing along a shotgun that he had obtained from Mr McRae. Ms Edwards dropped the co- offenders at the address and waited in the vehicle nearby.

[6] When the victim arrived at the address Mr Kidwell appeared with the shotgun and pointed the barrel through the vehicle window at the victim’s head, threatening to kill him if he did not hand over the money. Mr Kidwell then struck the victim with

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 236(1)(b). Liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years.
2 Section s 35. Liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years.

the gun barrel, and discharged a round through the roof of the vehicle, grazing the victim’s head. The victim attempted to flee in his vehicle but hit a tree and was forced to flee on foot. Following the offending Ms Edwards picked up Mr Kidwell. No money was obtained from the victim.

[7] The second charge involved similar offending. Again, a motorcycle was advertised for sale on Facebook, and the victim of the offending arranged to purchase the item the following day. The victim arrived at…

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 [2019] NZHC 2755
Case: [2019] NZHC 2755
Decision Date: 29 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Karla Rachael Edwards, appealed against her sentence of four years and eight months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Connell, as well as against two convictions that had been entered erroneously. The appeal against sentence was based on the grounds that the sentencing judge failed to provide a discount for remorse and did not acknowledge issues pursuant to s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The appeal against the convictions was based on the argument that the convictions for discharging a firearm and accessing a computer system for dishonest purposes had been withdrawn and should not have been entered. The Crown did not oppose the appeal against the convictions.

In regard to the sentence appeal, the court found that the starting point and uplift applied by Judge Connell were appropriate. The court also found that the 25 per cent discount applied for the early guilty pleas was sufficient to take into account the appellant’s remorse, and that a further reduction was not appropriate. Therefore, the sentence appeal was dismissed. The appeal against the erroneously entered convictions was allowed and the convictions were quashed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the appeal against the convictions was allowed with the convictions quashed.

Orders