Edwards v The Queen - [2018] NZCA 93

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA637/2017
[2018] NZCA 93

BETWEEN	JOSHUA TEREHUNGA EDWARDS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	18 April 2018
Court:	Kós P, French and Miller JJ
Counsel:	M A Stevens for Appellant K S Grau for Respondent
Judgment:	2 May 2018 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Kós P)

Two young men are heading home up High Street, Dunedin, after a shopping trip. One is carrying some newly-bought shoes and socks. At the corner of High and Hope Streets they are accosted by Mr Grace. The shoes and socks are taken from them. Mr Grace later pleads guilty to aggravated robbery and is sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He is to observe that they were most expensive shoes he ever acquired. But Mr Grace is not alone. The issue at trial was whether the appellant, Mr Edwards, was also guilty of aggravated robbery. He is Mr Grace’s cousin. It is common ground that he was present for at least some of the time before the two groups separated. He was charged with aggravated robbery, as a principal.
Mr Edwards was convicted by a jury and sentenced by Judge Phillips in the District Court to two years and two months’ imprisonment.[1] His appeal is against conviction only. It is brought on the single contention that the jury’s verdict is unreasonable given inconsistences in testimony of witnesses at trial.
[1]R v Edwards [2017] NZDC 24066 at [12].
This judgment addresses three questions:
(a)When is a verdict unreasonable?
(b)What had to be proved by the Crown?
(c)Were the verdicts unreasonable?

When is a verdict unreasonable?

In R v Owen, the Supreme Court said:[2]
… a verdict will be unreasonable if, having regard to all the evidence, the jury could not reasonably have been satisfied to the required standard that the accused was guilty.
[2]R v Owen [2007] NZSC 102, [2008] 2 NZLR 37 at [17].
This Court has said that it is not its function to substitute its view of the evidence for a view which is reasonably open to the jury.[3] The weight to be given to discrete pieces of evidence, and assessment as to witness credibility, are essentially jury functions.[4] In R v Patel we observed:[5]
Verdicts based on credibility are likely to be overturned only where there is contemporary evidence which clearly contradicts the witness or in cases of glaring improbability. Inconsistencies alone are unlikely to reach that standard.
[3]Tamati v R [2010] NZCA 49 at [48].
[4]P (CA84/2017) v R [2017] NZCA 319 at [49]–[50].
[5]R v Patel [2009] NZCA 102 at [27].
These principles were common ground between counsel.

What had to be proved by the Crown?

The charge in this case was aggravated robbery under s 235(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. The Crown case was that Messrs Grace and Edwards together participated in…

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 [2018] NZCA 93
Case: [2018] NZCA 93
Decision Date: 2 May 2018 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Terehunga Edwards appealed against his conviction for aggravated robbery, contending that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable given inconsistencies in the testimony of the Crown witnesses at trial. Edwards was convicted by a jury and sentenced to two years and two months’ imprisonment. The appeal was brought on the single contention that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable given inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses at trial. The appeal court had to decide whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable, what had to be proved by the Crown to establish aggravated robbery, and whether the verdicts were unreasonable. The appeal court found that the jury was entitled to be sure that Edwards was acting together with Mr Grace when Mr Grace robbed Mr Tosh, and shared his intent to rob. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The appeal court addressed three questions: (a) When is a verdict unreasonable? (b) What had to be proved by the Crown? (c) Were the verdicts unreasonable? The court held that a verdict will be unreasonable if, having regard to all the evidence, the jury could not reasonably have been satisfied to the required standard that the accused was guilty. The court held that the Crown had to prove that Edwards was physically present, shared an intent to rob and played an active part in the robbery. The court held that the jury was entitled to be sure that Edwards was acting together with Mr Grace when Mr Grace robbed Mr Tosh, and shared his intent to rob. The court found that the jury was entitled to regard the evidence of the three Crown witnesses as credible, their essential substratum evidence as to Edwards’ participation in the robbery as reliable, and the evidence of Mr Grace as unreliable. The inconsistencies in evidence were placed squarely before the jury in defence counsel’s closing address. The jury was invited to doubt the accounts given by the Crown witnesses, and correspondingly to give credence to that given by Mr Grace. The Judge drew attention to these matters in his summing-up. The appeal court found that the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders