EDWARDS v NZ POLICE [2019] NZHC 932

EDWARDS v NZ POLICE [2019] NZHC 932 [30 April 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNAPIER REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAAHURIRI ROHECRI 2019-441-8[2019] NZHC 932BETWEEN CREDENCE HARLEY EDWARDSAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 30 April 2019 (via AVL)Counsel: A McPherson for AppellantA V Bryant for RespondentJudgment: 30 April 2019JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J[1] Mr Edwards appeals a final sentence of 12 months' imprisonment imposed inrelation to a number of convictions.1[2] The lead offence was assault on a person in a domestic relationship.Mr McPherson argued with his partner over their children. In the course of this hepunched the victim first on her shoulder blade and then to the side of her jaw. Thisattracted a starting point of nine months'.[3] There was then a seven month uplift imposed in relation to three other offences.The first of these was a further assault on the same victim on a separate occasion. Thatinvolved pushing her while she held a baby and spitting at her. Mr Edwards hadalready been convicted on this. The sentence at the time was to come up for sentencing1 New Zealand Police; Department of Corrections v Edwards [2019] NZDC 2569.if called upon, and the present offending occurred within that narrow pocket duringwhich Mr Edwards needed to refrain from offending.[4] The second offence was breach of a release condition, namely not to associatewith the victim. There is a degree of confusion over this. It seems that the conditionwas revised at one point to allow Mr Edwards to assist with caring for the children.But then seemingly this arrangement was cancelled due to its lack of success.However, on the occasion of the assault that is that Mr Edwards was doing – caringfor the children at the victim's house while she did Christmas shopping. What isbeyond doubt is that his presence was a breach (hence the conviction), the victim wascomplicit in the breach, and the very thing occurred which the condition is designedto prevent – an argument followed by an assault.[5] The third offence was breach of community work sentence. Again, there issome confusion over the details of the offence – how many breaches there were, forexample. The criminal history records it as a representative charge and the Crowninformation is that Mr Edwards was both difficult to get to the starter and thenbreached several times. Ms McPherson's information is that there were considerablyfewer breaches. It seems clear, however, that in the two months since imposition, only9–11 hours of the 80 hour sentence had been completed.[6] The cumulative starting points produced a term of 16 months' to which a25 per cent discount for a guilty plea was applied. This left the final sentence at12 months. The appellant contends that each link was too long producing a manifestlyexcessive outcome.[7] I consider each link was probably near the top of the available range but agreewith the respondent another factor is determinative. This is the fourth separatesentencing occasion for Mr Edwards involving assaults on the same victim. InFebruary 2017, a sentence of 15 months' was imposed for assault with a weapon x2and threatening to kill. The offending covered two separate occasions. Then inFebruary 2018, he received a sentence of six months' imprisonment on two furthercharges of assaulting the same victim. Finally, in November 2018 there was the assaultcharge on which he received the sentence of coming up if called.[8] This present occasion being the seventh offence of violence against the samevictim is less than two years, I consider a deterrent sentence was required, and that anuplift to reflect the previous offending could be expected. The extent to which anyadjustment could be made to the existing sentence is offset by the need for the finalsentence to reflect these aspects. The end sentence is therefore not manifestlyexcessive.[9] The appeal is dismissed.________________________Simon France J