Frankie Te Uira Edwards v The King
[2025] NZCA 458
•9 September 2025
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].
[8] On 26 November 2024, the Commission referred Mr Edwards’ convictions for the 10 April 2006 offending to the High Court pursuant to s 17 of the Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2019 (CCRC Act). The referral was to the High Court because Mr Edwards had pleaded guilty in the District Court.4 The Commission referred Mr Edwards’ sentence to this Court on 27 November 2024.
[9] On 31 March 2023, we transferred the conviction reference to this Court pursuant to s 321(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
[10] On 24 July 2025, the parties filed an agreement as to facts under s 9 of the Evidence Act 2006 concerning the conviction reference.
Summary of the s 9 agreement
[11] It is now not possible to determine why Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to the 10 April 2006 offending. He was represented by a lawyer at the time, but neither that lawyer nor the police officer in charge of the case can shed any light on why Mr Edwards pleaded guilty.
[12] The victim’s description of the offender cannot be reconciled with Mr Edwards’ appearance in 2006. In particular, the victim said the offender was “half caste Caucasian / dark skinned” and that he had “[n]o distinguishing marks on [his] hands or arms [and] had dense hair on his arms”. She also said the offender had a distinctive tattoo across his stomach. Mr Edwards, who is Māori, had very little body hair in 2006 and numerous tattoos on his arms and hands. He had no tattoo on his stomach.
[13] Police records wrongly claimed the victim’s car was recovered from outside the house of Mr Edwards’ sister.
[14] Mr Edwards was interviewed about the incidents that led to 31 of the charges laid against him, but he was not interviewed in relation to the 10 April 2006 incident.
4 Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2019, s 18(1)(a).
[15] In summary, the Crown accepts there is no admissible evidence to support the convictions of Mr Edwards in relation to the offending on 10 April 2006 aside from his guilty pleas and potentially propensity evidence concerning similarities between the offending on 10 April 2006 and offending on other occasions by Mr Edwards.
Procedure when considering a reference by the Commission
[16] Aside from s 20 of the CCRC Act, which requires us to “hear and determine the matter as if it were a first appeal against the conviction”, the CCRC Act provides no guidance on the procedure we should follow when a reference is made to us by the Commission.
Is an extension of time to appeal required?
[17] All references will inevitably be made a considerable time after the prescribed periods for filing appeals against conviction and sentence,5 and if a Commission’s referral is an appeal then an extension of time to appeal might be required under ss 231(3) or 248(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
[18] However, extensions of time were never considered necessary when this Court received references from the Governor-General pursuant to the now repealed s 406 of the Crimes Act 1961. The reasons for that included that such references were not appeals under the Crimes Act but rather steps taken by the Crown as part of the Royal prerogative of mercy.
[19] Commission references now replace references from the Governor-General. Although they no longer form part of the prerogative powers, we consider Commission references should not require applications to extend time to appeal. There are two reasons for this conclusion. First, there is a distinction between appeals under the Criminal Procedure Act and cases which follow the appeal procedures set out in that Act. Although Commission references are governed by the procedures set out in pt 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, such references are not actually appeals. Secondly, if an extension was required, one would inevitably be granted in the interests
5 Under ss 231(2) and 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, the timeframe for filing an appeal against conviction or sentence is 20 working days after the date of sentencing.
of justice. We see little merit in requiring the Commission and/or an applicant to apply for an extension of time to appeal in circumstances where an extension is inevitable.
Setting aside a conviction following a guilty plea
[20] The criteria for setting aside a conviction following a guilty plea may, however, be relevant where a reference has been made by the Commission in circumstances where the conviction occurred following a guilty plea. Examples of cases in which convictions have been quashed following a guilty plea include cases where the appellant did not appreciate the nature of the charge to which he or she pleaded guilty.6
Analysis
[21] In the present case, the Crown properly accepts that, for reasons which will never be fully understood, Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to the charges arising from the 10 April 2006 incident.
[22] Neither Mr Edwards nor his counsel appeared to appreciate that there was not sufficient evidence to prove those charges against him. The material inconsistencies between the victim’s description of the offender and Mr Edwards’ appearance at the time appear not to have been appreciated by either Mr Edwards or his lawyer.
[23] In these circumstances, we are satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to quash Mr Edwards’ convictions in relation to the three offences arising from the incident on 10 April 2006. We do not order a re-trial.
6 R v Le Page [2005] 2 NZLR 845 (CA) at [17]–[19]; Merrilees v R [2009] NZCA 59 at [33]–[34];
and Re Solicitor-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2023) [2023] NZSC 151, [2023] 1 NZLR 457 at
[40]–[46].
Result
[24] Mr Edwards’ three convictions referred to the Court by the Commission are quashed.
[25]No re-trial is ordered.
Solicitors:
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent
0