R v Edwards - [2018] NZHC 256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-092-005704

[2018] NZHC 256

THE QUEEN

v

KERROD HAWEA EDWARDS

Hearing: 27 February 2018

Appearances:

E McCaughan and R Gibbs for the Crown

H de Groot on behalf of Q Duff for the Defendant

Judgment:

27 February 2018

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Manukau Counsel: Q Duff, Auckland
H de Groot, Auckland

R v EDWARDS [2018] NZHC 256 [27 February 2018]

Introduction

[1] Mr Edwards you appear today for sentence having pleaded guilty in the District Court on 19 January 2017 to two charges, namely:

(a)One representative charge of sexual connection with a young person under 16;1 and

(b)One charge of meeting a young person under 16 following sexual grooming.2

[2] Sexual connection with a young person under 16 carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.3 Meeting a young person under 16 following sexual grooming carries a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.4

[3] Having regard to your history of offending and the offending for which you are to be sentenced today, on 27 September 2017 Judge Bergseng, in the Manukau District Court, transferred the sentencing to the High Court for consideration of a sentence of preventive detention.5 That is why you appear for sentencing in this Court.

[4] Ultimately, after reviewing the health assessors’ reports, the Crown submits that a sentence of preventive detention is not required in your case. Instead it submits that a finite sentence, with the ability for the Department of Corrections to apply for an extended supervision order, would provide adequate protection for society.

[5] On your behalf, Mr de Groot submits that you should be sentenced to a nominal period of home detention, which would recognise the fact that you have spent more than one year on custodial remand.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 134(1).
2      Crimes Act, s 131B(1).
3      Section 134(1).
4      Section 131B(1).
5      Sentencing Act 2002, s 90(2).

[6] Although the Crown now submits that a sentence of preventive detention is not required, I can still impose a sentence of preventive detention on you if I consider it appropriate.6

[7] Before I determine whether I will do so, I must first identify what the appropriate finite sentence should be.

Factual background

[8] There is one victim of your offending. She is entitled to name suppression and for the purpose of these sentencing notes, I shall refer to the victim as “A”.

[9]The relevant events occurred between December 2015 and January 2016.

[10] Mr Edwards, you were 20 years old at the time of the offending. A, your victim, was 14 years old. She lived in Auckland. You did not.

[11] You had a Facebook page and you engaged in mutual online conversations with the victim across Facebook.

[12] Over time, a relationship began to develop. In early December 2015, you suggested a long-term relationship with A. You even suggested moving to Auckland to facilitate such a relationship.

[13]…

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 [2018] NZHC 256
Case: [2018] NZHC 256
Decision Date: 27 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Edwards, the defendant pleaded guilty to two charges: sexual connection with a young person under 16 and meeting a young person under 16 following sexual grooming. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The legal issues involved determining an appropriate finite sentence, considering whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention, and setting a starting point for the sentence by taking into account the facts of the offending and the defendant's personal circumstances.

The court established a starting point of three years and six months’ imprisonment for the lead charge, with an uplift of six months for the charge of meeting a young person under 16 following sexual grooming. The court then adjusted the starting point based on personal aggravating and mitigating features. An uplift of four months was applied for previous convictions, while a discount of 10 months was given for youth, willingness to engage in treatment, and cognitive impairment. A further discount of nine months was applied for the defendant's guilty plea, resulting in an effective end sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment.

Regarding preventive detention, the court considered reports from health assessors and found that there was enough evidence to indicate that the defendant was likely to commit another qualifying sexual or violent offence. However, the court concluded that a finite sentence would provide adequate protection for society if the defendant completed Corrections programs relating to sexual offending. The defendant was sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment on the lead charge and 18 months’ imprisonment on the charge of meeting a young person under 16 following sexual grooming, to be served concurrently. The defendant was also registered as a registrable offender under the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016.

Orders