Legal Research
Cases
R v Edmands

R v Edmands

Case [2022] NZHC 246 22 February 2022

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-2020-004-1035

[2022] NZHC 246

THE QUEEN

v

SAM JAMES EDMANDS

Defendant

Hearing: 22 February 2022

Appearances:

BN Kirkpatrick for the Crown

PK Hamlin and SJ Vincent for Mr Edmands

Judgment:

22 February 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF FITZGERALD J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

To:P Hamlin, Auckland S Vincent, Auckland

R v EDMANDS [2022] NZHC 246 [22 February 2022]

Introduction

[1] Mr Edmands, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to one charge of participation in an organised criminal group1 and one charge of failing to carry out obligations relating to a computer search, namely failing to give the Police the PIN to your cell phone.2 The maximum sentence for participation in an organised criminal group is 10 years’ imprisonment, and the maximum sentence for the failure to provide Police with your PIN is three months’ imprisonment.

[2] The organised criminal group which you were a part of was a sophisticated syndicate dealing in large quantities of controlled drugs, including methamphetamine. I say at the outset that methamphetamine is a terrible drug; it wrecks havoc on New Zealand communities, and inflicts misery on users and their families alike. The courts witness the consequences of this drug, and the raft of offending it leads to, on a daily basis.

[3] I also observe at the outset however, that you were not a leading player in this syndicate, though that is not to diminish your importance to it; syndicates like that in which you became involved rely on all participants playing their part, no matter their level of “seniority”. But the materials provided to the Court also suggest that your participation in this group was caused in a not insignificant way by your own addition to methamphetamine.

[4] I think it is appropriate to tell you at the outset that I do not propose to sentence you today to a term of imprisonment. Rather, taking into account all the features of this case, I consider a sentence of home detention is appropriate. I should emphasise that this is not a “soft option”; home detention is still a difficult sentence. But what you should take from this Mr Edmands, is that this should be a watershed moment for you in your life. It appears that you have made good progress in turning your life around in the last two years. Make sure that change sticks. Do not get sucked into the terrible life that accompanies methamphetamine again. Should you come before the

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 98A(1).
2 Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 130 and 178.

courts again for drug-related offending, an outcome of home detention may not be available to you.

[5] While I have told you what the end sentence will be today, it is nevertheless important that you, those in the court here today, both in person and via electronic means, and the community more broadly, know why I have come…

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 Edmands

Details

AGLC: R v Edmands [2022] NZHC 246
Case: [2022] NZHC 246
Decision Date: 22 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Sam James Edmands, appeared before the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, for sentencing after pleading guilty to charges of participation in an organised criminal group and failing to provide the PIN for his cell phone to the police. The organised criminal group was involved in the importation and distribution of large quantities of controlled drugs, including methamphetamine. The court observed that while Edmands was not a leading player in the syndicate, his participation was influenced by his addiction to methamphetamine. The court decided that Edmands would not be sentenced to imprisonment but would instead receive a sentence of home detention.

The legal issues before the court were determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering personal factors that might justify an increase or decrease in the starting point, and deciding on the appropriate sentence for the defendant. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offending, the defendant's personal circumstances, and the sentencing purposes and principles, including rehabilitation and imposing the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances.

The court decided on a starting point of three years and two months' imprisonment for the most serious offence of participation in an organised criminal group. The court also imposed an uplift of two months for the charge of failing to provide the PIN for his cell phone. The court then considered personal factors, such as the defendant's addiction to methamphetamine, which led to a 20% discount on the starting point. The court also considered the defendant's successful rehabilitation efforts and genuine remorse, leading to a further 10% discount. The court also gave a 30% discount for the defendant's guilty pleas. Applying these discounts, the court decided on a sentence of eight months' home detention, considering it appropriate in the circumstances and consistent with the sentencing purposes and principles. The court also ordered the defendant to attend and complete any appropriate drug and alcohol treatment programme, if considered appropriate by a Probation Officer.

Orders