R v Edwards - [2009] NZCA 269

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA126/2009
[2009] NZCA 269
THE QUEEN
v
RORY ANTON EDWARDS
Hearing:8 June 2009

Court:Arnold, Priestley and Winkelmann JJ
Counsel:D G Slater for Appellant

M D Downs for Crown

Judgment:25 June 2009 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Winkelmann J)
[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to eight charges of offering to supply the class A drug LSD, one charge of supplying LSD, one charge of possession of LSD for the purposes of supply, one charge of producing the class B drug cannabis oil, 14 charges of possession of the class C drug cannabis for supply and six charges of offering cannabis to others. Panckhurst J sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of three years. Mr Edwards appeals against his sentence on the grounds that the final sentence imposed is manifestly excessive because:
(a)The Judge failed to give an appropriate discount in light of the early guilty pleas.
(b)The Judge adopted too high a starting point for the totality of the offending.

Factual background
[2]       During a 22 day period between 8 and 30 November 2008, Mr Edwards committed a total of 31 offences. All charges against him were brought as a consequence of a police investigation during which warrants were obtained to intercept text message traffic between a number of people, including Mr Edwards. On 11 December 2008, the investigation in his case was brought to a close and a search warrant executed at his home. On execution of that warrant, Mr Edwards was found in possession of a small amount of cannabis (1.5 grams), two BZP pills, but no LSD. When questioned by the police he admitted that he was the person involved in the intercepted text messages, and that he had been dealing in drugs, cannabis and LSD in particular.
[3]       Mr Edwards entered a guilty plea to all charges on what was accepted by the Crown as the earliest possible date, 16 January 2009. The guilty plea was entered on the basis of the summary of facts and schedules of intercepted text messages attached to the summary. The summary said nothing about the quantities of drugs involved in the offending other than referring to one text in which Mr Edwards said that he could source 100 LSD tabs at a time. The sentencing Judge was invited to make a finding as to the level of dealing, and Mr Edwards’ involvement in it, on the basis of the text messages.
The sentence
[4]       The sentencing Judge dealt with Mr Edwards’ culpability in the following passages:
[12]Mr Slater said on your behalf that you were essentially dealing in cannabis and I have no doubt that that is so. The number of cannabis charges confirms as much. As to that you were a tinnie dealer dealing at street level, selling a handful, one or two tinnies at a time, and at the normal street prices. The word “middleman” has been…

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 [2009] NZCA 269
Case: [2009] NZCA 269
Decision Date: 25 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an appeal by Rory Anton Edwards against his sentence for various drug-related charges. Edwards pleaded guilty to multiple charges including offering to supply LSD, supplying LSD, possession of LSD for the purposes of supply, producing cannabis oil, and possession and offering of cannabis. The trial court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of three years. Edwards appealed on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive, arguing that the sentencing judge did not appropriately discount his sentence for his early guilty pleas and that the judge adopted too high a starting point for the totality of the offending. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge properly applied the totality principle and that the sentence was within the available range for this type of offending.

The court considered the arguments regarding the discount for the early guilty pleas and the starting point for the sentence. The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the totality principle and had appropriately increased the starting point to reflect the totality of the offending. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was within the appropriate range for the type of offending involved. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and dismissed the appeal.

Orders