Legal Research
Cases
Hawea-Edwards v The Queen

Hawea-Edwards v The Queen

Case [2020] NZHC 3093 23 November 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED/DEFENDANT(S) PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-404-000268

[2020] NZHC 3093

BETWEEN
ANTONIO CONAN HAWEA-EDWARDS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 12 October 2020

Appearances:

Hunter de Groot for the Appellant

Rebekah Thompson for the Respondent Catrina Owen representing Stuff Limited

Judgment:

23 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF MOORE J

[Appeal against refusal to grant name suppression]

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 November 2020 at 3:00 pm.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar Date:

HAWEA-EDWARDS v R [2020] NZHC 3093 [23 November 2020]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Antonio Conan Hawea-Edwards, is a serving prisoner having been sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment by Judge D J Sharp in the District Court at Auckland on 2 July 2020.1

[2] The day before sentencing, Judge Sharp heard and declined Mr Hawea-Edwards’ application for permanent name suppression under s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the “CPA”).2 Mr Hawea-Edwards appeals that decision.

Background

[3]Following a sentencing indication, Mr Hawea-Edwards pleaded guilty to:

(a)two charges of assault with intent to commit sexual violation;3

(b)one charge of attempting to commit sexual violation;4

(c)one charge of burglary;5 and

(d)six charges of indecent assault.6

[4] The offending arose from events in the Auckland Central Business District on the afternoon of Saturday, 21 September 2019. Within a period of just under two hours Mr Hawea-Edwards approached and sexually assaulted 10 women. With the exception of one, the complainants received no physical injuries although, unsurprisingly, their victim impact statements reveal varying degrees of distress and emotional harm.

1      R v Hawea-Edwards [2020] NZDC 12599.
2      R v Hawea-Edwards [2020] NZDC 12851.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 129(2); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
4      Section 129(1); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
5      Section 231(a); maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
6      Section 135; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

[5] When approached by the Police in the immediate aftermath of the offending, Mr Hawea-Edwards attempted to flee but later claimed he said he could not recall what happened and it was all a dream. The following day it was apparent he was not in a fit state to make a statement. He commented to the Police, “How am I supposed to know what happened yesterday? I clearly wasn’t right.” When asked to provide clothing for evidential purposes, he requested privacy to change and then tore up the t-shirt he had been wearing.

[6] At the sentencing indication the Judge referred to a number of psychiatric reports which pointed to a bipolar or schizo-affective disorder, complicated and exacerbated by substance abuse. A s 27 report described Mr Hawea-Edwards as representing the stereotype of a criminal offender; physically strong, with a record of prior offending and few mitigating features or evidence of remorse. The report described a difficult childhood which limited Mr Hawea-Edwards’ insight, thus reducing the opportunities available to…

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 Hawea-Edwards v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hawea-Edwards v The Queen [2020] NZHC 3093
Case: [2020] NZHC 3093
Decision Date: 23 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Antonio Conan Hawea-Edwards, a serving prisoner, appeals against the decision of the District Court to deny his application for permanent name suppression. The appeal is heard in the High Court of New Zealand. Hawea-Edwards had pleaded guilty to multiple charges including assault with intent to commit sexual violation, attempting to commit sexual violation, burglary, and indecent assault. The District Court considered psychiatric reports which pointed to Hawea-Edwards’ bipolar or schizo-affective disorder, complicated by substance abuse, but declined his application for name suppression on the basis that his conduct in relation to the index offending required a public protection response.

The legal issues in the appeal concern whether the District Court erred in finding that the threshold for name suppression under section 200(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 was not met, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to prohibit publication. The appeal court examines the evidence and submissions from both sides, including fresh evidence regarding Hawea-Edwards’ risk of self-harm in a custodial setting. The court concludes that while publication would likely exacerbate Hawea-Edwards’ mental health issues, the risk of suicide can be adequately mitigated in a custodial environment. The court also finds that publication would not likely cause extreme hardship, as the adverse mental health impacts are likely to be temporary. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the suppression orders are set to expire on 30 April 2021.

Orders