[1] Matthew Edmonds, you are for sentence in this Court on two charges. You pleaded guilty to a charge of male assaults female relating to an assault on Ms Anneta Knott and, following a jury trial, you were found guilty of the manslaughter of Peter Bettink. The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment. I have previously given you a first strike warning as required by law.

The charges

[2] The situation you find yourself in and Mr Bettink’s death both arise out of your relationship with Ms Knott.

[3] You and Ms Knott were initially neighbours in Auckland. Her young sons would come to your place and from time to time you shared a bar-b-que meal. That changed in about mid to late 2011 when you and your wife separated and you moved in with Ms Knott and her two sons. Ms Knott maintained you were a boarder only but accepted during her evidence that you and she had sexual relations on a number of occasions. It is clear from the evidence that you became infatuated with Ms Knott. You wanted a full time and long term relationship with her. You did also develop a bond with her children.

[4] It seems that Ms Knott’s interest in any relationship with you was dependent on your financial situation. In late 2013 and early 2014 your financial position deteriorated to the extent you had to sell a number of items of equipment you needed for your work. In about April 2014 you moved to Whanganui to live with your mother. From then until November 2014 you regularly sent most of your wages to Ms Knott or for her use. In the six month period from May to November 2014 you sent over $13,500 to her for her use. You even borrowed $2,000 from your ill grandmother to send Ms Knott. It appears that at least some of the money you provided Ms Knott was used by her to purchase methamphetamine and to sustain her gambling habit.

[5] Your obsession with Ms Knott is apparent from the number and content of the text messages you sent her and the telephone messages you left for her. Ms Knott very rarely responded to you and often only when you were questioning whether to continue to put money into her account or her son’s account for her benefit. In April

matters between you had reached the stage where you sent a text saying “hope ur happy now you took my heart my soul I am dead now you murderer RIP MATT EDMONDS” and you scratched a message “RIP…

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 Edmonds

Details

AGLC: R v Edmonds [2015] NZHC 3254
Case: [2015] NZHC 3254
Decision Date: 16 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Brian Edmonds was sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand for two charges: manslaughter and assault. Edmonds pleaded guilty to assaulting Anneta Knott, and was found guilty by a jury of the manslaughter of Peter Bettink. The court was required to decide on an appropriate sentence for Edmonds, taking into account the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act 2002, particularly denunciation and deterrence. The court considered the extreme violence of the attack, the impact on the victims, and the mitigating factors such as Edmonds' remorse and early acceptance of responsibility. The court rejected suggestions that one punch manslaughter cases were relevant to this case, as the attack on Bettink was a serious and ongoing assault. After considering the authorities and testing the case by reference to the bands in R v Taueki, the court determined a starting point of seven years and nine months imprisonment for the manslaughter charge. For the assault on Knott, the court added an uplift of three months imprisonment. The court accepted that Edmonds was truly remorseful and regretted his attack almost as soon as the incident was over. The court considered a reduction for Edmonds' offer to plead guilty to manslaughter earlier in the year, but determined that it was proper for the Crown to continue with the charge of murder on the basis of the medical evidence. The court considered a reduction from the starting point of around 20 per cent to be appropriate, leading to an end sentence of six years and four months imprisonment for the manslaughter charge, and three months imprisonment for the assault on Knott. The sentences are to run concurrently.

Final orders: Edmonds is sentenced to imprisonment for six years and four months for the manslaughter of Peter Bettink, and three months for the assault on Anneta Knott. The sentences are to run concurrently.

Orders