Frankie Te Uira Edwards v The King - [2025] NZCA 458

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA769/2024

[2025] NZCA 458

BETWEEN
FRANKIE TE UIRA EDWARDS

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Court: French P, Thomas and Collins JJ

Counsel:

M J Dyhrberg KC and J N Olsen for Appellant M J Lillico and E P C Duckett for Respondent

Judgment:
(Onthepapers)

9 September 2025 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Mr Edwards’ three convictions referred to the Court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission are quashed.
B No re-trial is ordered.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Collins J)

Introduction

[1] On 12 July 2006, Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to 34 charges, including three charges that Te Kāhui Tātari Ture | Criminal Cases Review Commission (the Commission) has now referred to us for consideration. The Crown accepts that the three convictions should be quashed. A reference against Mr Edwards’ sentence in

EDWARDS v R [2025] NZCA 458 [9 September 2025]

relation to a number of convictions (including the three convictions that are the subject of this reference) will be heard by this Court on 3 February 2026.

Background

[2] The charges that Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to in the District Court stemmed from five incidents that occurred in Auckland between 9 April and 2 June 2006. Included in those charges were three relating to an incident in Epsom on 10 April 2006.

[3] The Crown case was that on 10 April 2006, Mr Edwards saw the victim getting into her parked car. He approached the car, got into the passenger seat and whilst armed with a knife, threatened to kill the victim’s family if she did not follow his instructions. The victim drove away with Mr Edwards but when she stopped at a traffic light she managed to escape from her car. The Crown alleged that Mr Edwards then drove the victim’s car away. As a consequence, Mr Edwards was charged with kidnapping, threatening to kill and converting a motor vehicle.

^[4]Mr Edwards was transferred to the High Court for sentencing. On 19 December 2006, he was sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years in relation to each of the two lead charges of rape (which occurred on another occasion).¹

^[5]In relation to the 10 April 2006 offending, Mr Edwards was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for kidnapping, one year’s imprisonment for threatening to kill and one year’s imprisonment for converting the victim’s motor vehicle. Those sentences were imposed concurrently with the sentences for the rape convictions.²

^[6]On 5 September 2007, the Solicitor-General was granted leave to appeal the sentence for the rape convictions. That appeal was allowed, and the finite sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment was quashed and substituted with preventive detention.³

[7]Mr Edwards did not appeal his convictions or sentence.

¹      R v Edwards CRI-2006-090-4361, 19 December 2006 at [109] and [112].
²      At [107] and [111].
³      R v Edwards [2007] NZCA 387 at [45].

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Frankie Te Uira Edwards v The King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZCA 458
Decision Date: 9 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand dealt with the appeal of Frankie Te Uira Edwards, who had previously pleaded guilty to 34 charges, including three charges referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission for review. The Crown agreed that these three convictions should be quashed. The court, consisting of French P, Thomas, and Collins JJ, was tasked with determining whether the convictions for kidnapping, threatening to kill, and converting a motor vehicle stemming from an incident on 10 April 2006 should be quashed.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the adequacy of the evidence supporting the convictions and whether there were procedural or substantive grounds to quash the convictions. The court had to consider whether an extension of time to appeal was required, given the referral by the Commission, and the criteria for setting aside a conviction following a guilty plea. The key issue was whether it was in the interests of justice to quash the convictions given the circumstances surrounding the guilty pleas, including the material inconsistencies between the victim’s description of the offender and Mr Edwards' appearance.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the convictions should be quashed because there was insufficient evidence to support them beyond Mr Edwards' guilty pleas. The court noted that neither Mr Edwards nor his counsel appeared to appreciate that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the charges against him. The material inconsistencies between the victim's description of the offender and Mr Edwards' appearance at the time were significant, as the victim described the offender as having dense hair on his arms and a tattoo across his stomach, whereas Mr Edwards had very little body hair and no such tattoo. Given these circumstances, the court found that it was in the interests of justice to quash the convictions.

The court further determined that no re-trial was necessary. The convictions for the offences arising from the incident on 10 April 2006 were quashed, and no re-trial was ordered.

Orders