Legal Research
Cases
R v Edgerton

R v Edgerton

Case [2020] NZHC 1694 14 July 2020

Sentencing

Pattern of Serious Offending

Harm to the Community

Tendency to Commit Serious Offences

Efforts to Address Causes of Offending

Preventive Detention

Mandatory Period of Imprisonment

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2019-092-8422

[2020] NZHC 1694

THE QUEEN

v

NEVILLE ANDREW EDGERTON

Hearing: 14 July 2020

Counsel:

M S Williams for the Crown M Allen for the Defendant

Judgment:

14 July 2020

SENTENCE OF DUFFY J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Public Defence Service, Manukau

R v EDGERTON [2020] NZHC 1694 [14 July 2020]

[1] Mr Edgerton appears for sentence today after pleading guilty to sexual connection with a young person,1 supplying methamphetamine to that young person2 and receiving stolen property.3 He also appears for sentence on one charge of breach of release conditions.4

[2] Today Mr Edgerton indicated through his counsel that he was not prepared to leave his cell. He did this at 9.00 am in the morning and for other reasons, namely, the late arrival of a supplementary psychological report, the sentencing had to be delayed until 2.15 today. Mr Edgerton has been in the Courthouse in the cells all day, and he has had ample time to think about whether he would change his mind. He has chosen not to. Having indicated he was not prepared to leave his cell, he signed a written waiver in the following terms:

My name is Neville Andrew EDGERTON. DOB: 30 August 1955
PRN: 5748695

I am at the Auckland High Court today for sentencing. I do not wish to attend my sentencing hearing. I consent to the sentencing going ahead in my absence. My lawyer told me that I need to appear in court to hear my sentencing.

I have told my lawyer that I am going to stay in the cells and that the Judge can sentence me in my absence. My lawyer Ms Allen can relay to me the sentencing outcome.

The note is then signed and dated by Mr Edgerton.

[3] I was initially concerned regarding the prospect of proceeding with sentencing in circumstances where Mr Edgerton was absent from the courtroom. Particularly as s 123 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 prohibits the Court from sentencing an offender charged with category 2, 3 or 4 offences in his or her absence, as Mr Edgerton is. Section 123 also provides that where a defendant is absent the Court may issue a warrant for their arrest.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 134(1). Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 ss 6(1)(c) and (2). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247(a). Maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.
4      Parole Act 2002, s 71(1) maximum penalty one year imprisonment.

[4] I am satisfied however, that Mr Edgerton is not absent. He is present in the Court precincts and, if necessary, I could have him brought to the courtroom by force. I am however, not prepared to do that today and instead will accede to Mr Edgerton’s wishes and sentence him in his absence from the courtroom today. I will also direct that he remains in…

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 Edgerton

Details

AGLC: R v Edgerton [2020] NZHC 1694
Case: [2020] NZHC 1694
Decision Date: 14 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Neville Edgerton has been sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand to preventive detention for the charge of sexual connection with a young person, receiving stolen property and supplying methamphetamine, and breach of release conditions. The court found that Edgerton, who is already serving a life sentence for murder, poses a high risk of reoffending and thus an indeterminate sentence is necessary to protect the community. The court also found that Edgerton's lack of engagement in treatment and history of manipulating and deceiving parole officers, meant that an extended supervision order would not be sufficient to protect the community. The sentence of preventive detention is to be served concurrently with the life sentence and has a minimum period of imprisonment of five years. The court also imposed concurrent sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment for receiving, 18 months’ imprisonment for supply of methamphetamine and three months’ imprisonment for breach of release conditions.

The court found that Edgerton has a pattern of serious sexual offending and that his offending has caused significant harm to the victim and his family. The court also found that Edgerton possesses substance abuse disorder and poses a high risk of sexual recidivism within five years. The court found that Edgerton had not engaged in substantive treatment to address his substance abuse or sexual offending and that he had not made any efforts to address the causes of his offending. The court found that a lengthy determinate sentence would not be sufficient to protect the community or address Edgerton's rehabilitative needs. The court found that a sentence of preventive detention was necessary to protect the community and promote Edgerton's rehabilitation.

Orders