R v Eddington - [2016] NZHC 434

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

CRI-2015-076-435 [2016] NZHC 434

THE QUEEN

v

JAMES WILLIAM EDDINGTON

Hearing: 11 March 2016

Appearances:

A R McRae for Crown
R G Glover for Prisoner

Judgment:

11 March 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF DUNNINGHAM J

Background to the sentencing

[1] So as you understand, you are here today to be sentenced on seven charges which relate to that offending on 18 February last year. Those include two charges of aggravated robbery, charges of using a firearm against a police officer; assault, assault with a weapon; unlawful possession of a firearm, and driving with excess blood alcohol.

[2] Now your co-offender, Ms Keen, was sentenced by Nation J late last year for her participation.1 She was sentenced to a term of two years and nine months’ imprisonment and I mention this simply because later, I will need to take account of
the sentence she received when I sentence you.

1 R v Keen [2015] NZHC 3066.

R v EDDINGTON [2016] NZHC 434 [11 March 2016]

[3] Now as you know, although these matters were first in the District Court, they are now before this Court because the sentence of preventive detention is being considered.

Summary of facts

[4] The events which gave rise to these charges occurred on the afternoon of

18 February. You and your co-offender, Ms Keen, drove to the Highfield Mall in Timaru. While Ms Keen waited in the car, you entered the Mall and walked straight into the New Zealand Post Shop which contained a number of customers and three staff members. As you approached the counter, you pulled your t-shirt up, partially covering your face. You presented your knife at the 15 year old staff member at the counter and demanded she hand money over to you. This staff member and another were so frightened they ran out of the back of the shop and hid. Another staff member approached you and you pointed the knife at her and demanded money. You repeatedly attempted to enter the area behind the counter by shoulder-charging the locked door that separates the staff from the shop floor. While money was being obtained for you, you made the five remaining customers in the shop kneel down on the floor. You were handed approximately $2,385 in cash before you ran from the Post Shop into the waiting car and drove off with your co-defendant.

[5] At about 7 o’clock on the same day, you drove to the township of Fairlie and parked near the BP service station. This time you were carrying a .22 calibre rifle complete with telescopic sights and a silencer. You ran across the forecourt of the service station into the building. At that time, a staff member and a customer were in the service station. You pointed the rifle at the customer and told him to get down, which he did. You then pointed the rifle at the staff member and demanded cash. The staff member complied and…

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 R v Eddington

Details

AGLC: R v Eddington [2016] NZHC 434
Case: [2016] NZHC 434
Decision Date: 11 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, James William Eddington faced sentencing on charges stemming from incidents occurring on February 18, including two counts of aggravated robbery, using a firearm against a police officer, assault, assault with a weapon, unlawful possession of a firearm, and driving with excess blood alcohol. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence considering the severity of the crimes, Eddington's culpability, the need for consistency with his co-offender's sentence, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also had to determine if preventive detention was necessary to protect the community. The sentencing judge considered the aggravating factors such as the use of a firearm, the public's presence during the robberies, and Eddington's intoxicated state. Mitigating factors included Eddington's display of remorse and a willingness to address substance abuse issues, although past failures to change warranted scepticism. After evaluating various reports and expert opinions, the judge concluded that a lengthy finite sentence would adequately protect the community. The final sentence comprised concurrent terms of imprisonment on each charge, with specific minimum periods for certain offences, and a Stage 1 Warning under the three strikes legislation.

Orders