R v Edwards - [2008] NZCA 205

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA159/08
[2008] NZCA 205
THE QUEEN
v
EDDIE KAURANGA EDWARDS
Hearing:23 June 2008

Court:Ellen France, Gendall and Ronald Young JJ
Counsel:G C McArthur for Appellant

S B Edwards for Crown

Judgment:3 July 2008 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Appeal dismissed.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Gendall J)
[1]       The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Tauranga to three counts, namely assaulting a female; having in his possession in a dwelling house an offensive weapon (a machete), in circumstances that prima facie showed an intention to use it to commit an offence involving bodily injury, or the threat or fear of violence; and assaulting the female complainant using a knife as a weapon.
[2]       In addition, he had pleaded guilty to a charge of theft.
[3]       He was sentenced by Judge Bidois to five months’ home detention on the three indictable matters subject to special conditions as to residence, undertaking counselling, and standard and special post detention conditions relating to counselling. Further, he was sentenced to 100 hours community work and an order for reparation of $600. A cumulative sentence of one month’s home detention and reparation of $1,414.00 was imposed on the theft conviction: DC TAU CRI 2007-070-2699 12 March 2008.
[4]       The appellant appeals against the sentence of six months’ home detention, on the basis that it is manifestly excessive and inappropriate.
Background facts
[5]       On 15 July 2007, the appellant was at the address of the female complainant with whom he had in the past had a relationship. She asked him to leave. He resisted and violently set upon the complainant, punching her above the eye and in the chest. He obtained a machete and threatened to kill the complainant. He then went to the kitchen, obtained a knife with a blade approximately six inches long, and put the knife to the complainant’s chest. He pushed her backwards, piercing her skin, but in a relatively minor way. He continued his attack by punching the complainant on her jaw.
[6]       The theft charge related to him selling items that he obtained from a video shop. He did not return them and used the money he obtained to acquire drugs.
[7]       The sentencing Judge referred to the appellant having a history of violence and a harmful pattern of drug abuse and gambling. The appellant was said to be remorseful and was described as a low risk offender, provided he abstained from drugs and alcohol. If not, he was at high risk of reoffending.
[8]       The Judge referred to the appellant’s previous convictions, which included some involving serious violence, and to the fact that he had served a term of 15 months’ imprisonment for assault with a weapon. The Judge accepted as mitigating factors the appellant’s guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility, together with the motivation and family support that he had, which provided some hope of rehabilitation.
[9]       The Judge then went on to say:
[18]     I…

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 [2008] NZCA 205
Case: [2008] NZCA 205
Decision Date: 3 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the appeal of Eddie Kauranga Edwards against his sentence was dismissed. The appellant had pleaded guilty to assaulting a female, possessing an offensive weapon with intent to commit an offence involving bodily injury or the threat or fear of violence, assaulting the complainant using a knife as a weapon, and theft. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of five months’ home detention for the indictable matters, 100 hours community work, and reparation of $600, in addition to a sentence of one month’s home detention and reparation of $1,414.00 for the theft conviction. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and inappropriate, particularly in regards to the sentence of home detention.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Judge erred in failing to reduce the term of home detention to recognise the time spent on bail while subject to the condition of electronic monitoring, and whether the decision lacked transparency. The court found that the Judge had considered the appellant’s compliance with his strict bail conditions as an aspect of the personal circumstances on which the Judge placed significant weight in determining that he could impose home detention in a situation where imprisonment was otherwise inevitable. The court also found that there is no requirement for a Judge to give a day for day allowance for time an offender may have spent whilst on bail subject to electronic monitoring conditions. The Judge’s approach was consistent with that endorsed by the Court in R v Tamou. The court found that the appeal was dismissed as the sentence was well within the boundaries available to the Judge and was lenient.

Orders