Back in 2014, Peter Edwards was sentenced in the Auckland District Court to five years and 10 months on firearms and drug charges.
He was caught supplying methamphetamine, including selling $500 worth of the poisonous drug to his own teenage daughter.
The presiding Judge Nevin Dawson described that as “Scurrilous”.
But in Edwards defense, it WAS her birthday.
The creep had also spent $50,000 on rifles and shotguns, then modified them for crime and then passed the weapons on to organized crime.
Plus at least 16,000 rounds of ammunition.
Edwards had been granted a New Zealand firearms licence, despite having FIFTY THREE previous convictions in Australia.
Not counting the one for drink driving in New Zealand.
The Kiwi Gun Blog has asked the Police how he was able to get a license. This inquiry was ignored.
In the meanwhile – look how the Herald reported the problem:
Ah. ‘Record keeping’ was the problem.
Not giving a gun license to a criminal with over FIFTY convictions.
So Edwards simply bought seventy two shotguns and .22 calibre rifles from a gun shop. Then he cut them down and then added pistol grips. The weapons were then sold to the Head Hunters gang.
Some of the rifles also had their barrels threaded for silencers and many of the guns had their serial numbers filed off.
This is clearly the most serious of firearms offending. Calculating and utterly contemptuous of the public risk. After his arrest, Edwards also refused to help the Police in getting the guns back.
Apparently Edwards was eventually caught when police noticed a pattern in the guns that the Headhunters gang members were being found with. All had been modified in the same way.
His sentence, although pathetic, is almost approaching a penalty.
But how much of that was for the gun crime and how much for the forty two proven sales of methamphetamine?
News reports claimed that the judge handed down the “maximum sentence for supplying firearms to unlicensed people”.
After MONTHS of chasing – the Kiwi Gun Blog has secured the Judge’s sentencing notes.
The offender received a discount of four months for his guilty plea – despite refusing to help Police locate any of the guns. The Judge also acknowledged that the strength of the case was so strong that the plea was obviously selfish and without genuine remorse.
So for the very worst example of its kind…….
Two years eight months
Another charge also carried a maximum penalty of three years. The Judge gave him three months for that. To be served concurrently. So – a free pass.
As expected – the majority of the sentence received was for selling drugs. That is considered much more serious than arming a gang with 72 criminally modified weapons.
If he sold 72 guns – why the ONE SINGLE charge?
Was this a ‘Representative charge’ or was there no option?
The Kiwi Blog will continue to examine prosecution policy.
A charge may be representative if multiple offences of the same type are alleged to have been committed in similar circumstances and
- the offences are committed over a period of time, and the nature and circumstances of the offences make it unreasonable for the complainant to particularise dates or other details of the offences
- it is likely that the same plea would be entered by the defendant to all offences if charged separately, and it would be unduly difficult for the Court to manage the charges separately due to the number of offences.
Representative charges must include particulars of the offences for which the charge is representative (for example, particulars of values, amounts or quantities) and the dates on or between which the offending is alleged to have occurred. The Court may, in the interests of justice, order a representative charge be amended or divided into two or more charges, or that two or more charges be amalgamated into a representative charge.
This is yet another example of the pathetic deterrent that our justice system offers for the VERY worst of firearm offending.