R v Edwards - [2021] NZHC 1612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2018-019-7839

[2021] NZHC 1612

THE QUEEN

v

PARAKI EDWARDS

Hearing: 1 July 2021

Appearances:

R L Mann for Crown

P L Borich QC for Defendant

Judgment:

1 July 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Hamilton Legal, Hamilton

R v EDWARDS [2021] NZHC 1612 [1 July 2021]

[1] Mr Edwards, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to a charge of murdering your partner, Ms Michelle Hurunui. You have also entered a guilty plea to a charge of causing grievous bodily harm to your 11 month old son, Te Ariki, with reckless disregard for his safety. The maximum sentence for the offence of murder is life imprisonment, whilst the maximum sentence on the other charge is seven years imprisonment.

Factual background

[2] You are to be sentenced on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This records that you and Ms Hurunui were in a domestic relationship at the time of the offending. She was 32 years of age and had five children aged between 12 years and 11 months. You are the father of her youngest son, Te Ariki.

[3] The relationship between the two of you was clearly turbulent and the present charges do not reflect the only occasion on which you have been before the courts for offending involving violence. From time to time issues such as these caused Ms Hurunui to leave the relationship but, as is so often the case in this type of situation, she ended up returning to you.

[4] In early December 2018, you began living in the home of Ms Hurunui’s brother and his partner. Ms Hurunui and Te Ariki were also living at that address. On the morning of 24 December 2018, Christmas Eve, Ms Hurunui’s brother left the address early to go to work. This left Ms Hurunui, Te Ariki and you as the sole occupants of the address.

[5] The summary records that an argument developed about whether you could take Te Ariki to spend Christmas with your family. This developed into a physical altercation in which you administered a prolonged and severe beating to Ms Hurunui in the lounge of the address. You struck her multiple times about the head and body with both your fists and at least one sharp-edged object. You used a child’s toy bubble machine to strike Ms Hurunui repeatedly to the point where it disintegrated, leaving multiple plastic fragments around the room. In addition, glass panes of a ranch slider door were broken, as was a picture frame. The ferocity of the attack was such that the

wounds you inflicted on Ms Hurunui caused blood to spatter on walls and other items in the room.

[6] Adding to the seriousness of the attack is that Ms Hurunui was holding Te Ariki in her arms for at least part of the time during which you were assaulting her. Although he was not your target, several…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2021] NZHC 1612
Case: [2021] NZHC 1612
Decision Date: 1 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v Paraki Edwards involved a sentence for murder and causing grievous bodily harm with reckless disregard. The defendant, Mr. Edwards, pleaded guilty to murdering his partner, Ms. Michelle Hurunui, and causing grievous bodily harm to his 11-month-old son, Te Ariki. The primary legal issue before the court was determining the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment for the murder charge under Section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002.

The court considered various factors, including the nature and extent of the violence inflicted, the defendant's guilty pleas, and mitigating factors such as his background and upbringing. The court concluded that the defendant's offending was of considerable brutality and callousness, warranting a minimum term of imprisonment under Section 104. After considering the mitigating factors, the court decided that the minimum term should be reduced from 18 years to 16 years. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, with a minimum term of 16 years before eligibility for parole, and four years for causing grievous bodily harm, to be served concurrently.

Orders