The Queen v Edwards - [2005] NZCA 70

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA371/04
THE QUEEN
v
PHILLIP LAYTON EDWARDS
Hearing:16 February 2005

Court:Chambers, Williams and Salmon JJ
Counsel:R Wade for Appellant

A J F Perkins for Crown

Judgment:13 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
(Given by Chambers J)
Sentencing in manslaughter cases
[1]        This appeal raises the difficult question of how to approach the fixing of sentences in manslaughter cases. Phillip Edwards was charged with murdering David McNee, a well-known television personality. A jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The trial judge, Frater J, sentenced Mr Edwards to nine years’ imprisonment. She also imposed a minimum non-parole period of four and a half years’ imprisonment.
[2]        Mr Edwards has appealed against his sentence. His counsel, Mr Wade, has submitted that the sentence should have been in the vicinity of four to five years. Mr Wade accepts that this was an appropriate case for a minimum term of imprisonment and does not quibble with the judge’s 50% assessment. That would mean, however, on his much reduced headline sentence, that the minimum term would be only two years’ to two and a half years’ imprisonment.
[3]        Mr Wade submitted that there were three essential errors in Her Honour’s approach to the sentencing:
(a)The sentence was inconsistent with other authorities. The two cited to us were R v Rota CA208/97 24 September 1997 and R v Ali HC AK CRI 2003-292-1224 19 August 2004.
(b)The judge had given no credit or insufficient credit for the fact that Mr Edwards had always been prepared to plead guilty to manslaughter, the crime of which he was eventually found guilty.
(c)The judge regarded as relevant the severity of Mr Edwards’s attack on Mr McNee. Mr Wade submitted that that was erroneous, as the jury’s verdict indicated that they were satisfied that Mr Edwards had lost the power of self-control as a consequence of Mr McNee’s provocation. Mr Wade’s submission was that it was inappropriate to inflate the sentence in circumstances where the appellant was acting under provocation, that provocation being sufficient to deprive a person, having the power of self-control of an ordinary New Zealander, of the power of self-control.

[4]        We shall deal with those issues later in this judgment. We shall first set out the facts.
The facts of this case
[5]        We are indebted to Frater J for her succinct summary of the facts in her sentencing notes. Mr Edwards, on 20 July 2003, was with two friends on Karangahape Road in central Auckland. He noticed a black Audi TT convertible driving slowly by. When it stopped at the traffic lights, Mr Edwards ran up to the car and jumped into it. The driver was Mr McNee. One of Mr Edwards’s friends had noticed him in the Owl Bar a short time earlier. That friend had said that Mr McNee had been staring at him.
[6]        Mr Edwards knew, according to the judge, by the way Mr…

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 The Queen v Edwards

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Edwards [2005] NZCA 70
Case: [2005] NZCA 70
Decision Date: 13 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against Phillip Layton Edwards' sentence of nine years' imprisonment for manslaughter was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appeal centered on the trial judge's consideration of sentencing consistency, the offender's preparedness to plead guilty, and the relevance of the attack's severity. The court found that the sentence was consistent with other authorities, no credit was due for the preparedness to plead guilty, and the attack's severity was relevant. The court upheld the trial judge's findings, emphasizing the extreme and sustained nature of the violence, Edwards' extensive criminal history, and lack of remorse. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was affirmed.

Orders