Newbury-Edwardson v The Queen - [2018] NZHC 2744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI 2018-416-18

[2018] NZHC 2744

BETWEEN
LAURIE NEWBURY-EDWARDSON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 16 October 2018

Appearances:

A M Courtney for Appellant M L Wong for Respondent

Judgment:

23 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Mr Newbury-Edwardson appeals against a sentence of imprisonment of two years and one month imposed by Judge Cathcart in the Gisborne District Court on a charge of wounding with intent to injure to which he pleaded guilty.1

The offending

[2]Mr Newbury-Edwardson arrived uninvited at his uncle’s property at around

9.30 am on 31 December 2016. His uncle told him to leave and opened the gate for him to do so. Mr Newbury-Edwardson refused, and began swearing and yelling abuse at his uncle and tried to shut the gate. In doing this he slammed the gate on to his uncle and forced him to take a step back.

1 R v Newbury-Edwardson [2018] NZDC 14401 (Sentencing Notes of Judge Cathcart); Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2) (maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment).

NEWBURY-EDWARDSON v R [2018] NZHC 2744 [23 October 2018]

[3] This led to both of them yelling and calling each other names. Mr Newbury- Edwardson raised clenched fists to his uncle’s face and spat on him. Both men began to throw punches at each other. Mr Newbury-Edwardson was kicked in the groin area causing him to fall to the ground. He got up and retrieved a large hunting style knife from his vehicle which was parked nearby, and said “You’re going to get it now”.

[4] By this stage the two were on the road outside the uncle’s property. The uncle was retreating backwards from Mr Newbury-Edwardson when he tripped and fell into a drain area on to his back. Mr Newbury-Edwardson got on top of him and initially, unsuccessfully, tried to stab him in the chest with the hunting knife. Mr Newbury- Edwardson then stabbed his uncle in the shoulder. Blood began to flow from the wound. While Mr Newbury-Edwardson continued to stab him, his uncle grabbed a stick and swung it at Mr Newbury-Edwardson’s face. This caused a pause in the attack and allowed the uncle to get away.

[5] A passing motorist stopped to help the uncle. The uncle lost consciousness and was flown by helicopter to the Tauranga Hospital where he received surgery. One of the major arteries of his arms had been severed. He had lacerations in his arm and shoulder. While the end result of the injuries was not within the most serious category, they were life threatening at the time. But for the assistance of the passing motorist and the helicopter taking him to hospital the uncle could have died. The uncle continues to struggle with his work on the farm due to the ongoing physical effects of the injuries.

[6] Mr Newbury-Edwardson was initially charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and the lesser charge…

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 Newbury-Edwardson v The Queen 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: [2018] NZHC 2744
Decision Date: 23 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this case concerns the sentence of imprisonment of two years and one month imposed on Laurie Newbury-Edwardson by Judge Cathcart in the Gisborne District Court, following his guilty plea to a charge of wounding with intent to injure. The appellant, Newbury-Edwardson, submits that the sentencing judge erred in not giving a discount for remorse and in not giving a greater allowance for personal circumstances, particularly with regard to his Crohn's disease. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in not applying sufficient discounts to the appellant's personal circumstances, which would have warranted a sentence of home detention instead of imprisonment. The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to take the view that he had already accounted for the appellant's mental health issues and therefore no further discount should be allowed for his limited ability to express remorse. The court also held that there was no evidence put forward to show that the appellant's Crohn's disease could not be managed in prison, and the Crown had provided information to the contrary. The judge had allowed a discount of 33.33 per cent for all those mitigating factors other than the guilty plea and 22 per cent discount for the guilty plea, which were within the available range. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of imprisonment was upheld.

Orders