Latest news with #Edwards
Otago Daily Times
13 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Bailed woman has history of violent attacks
A woman who launched a series of violent assaults on people she knew, including brandishing weapons in front of young children, was on bail for violence-related charges. Nastasia Edwards' victims were all known to her and living at Christchurch properties when she launched her attacks on January 14 last year. Judge Raoul Neave described Edwards' behaviour as very serious offending when she appeared for sentencing on multiple charges, including assault and threatening to kill, in the Christchurch District Court last week. 'We had innocent members of the public attacked by her - there has to be some sort of protection.' The court heard that Edwards' first victim was at her St Martins home with her 7-year-old daughter and 20-year-old son when she saw Edwards standing in their driveway. Edwards, a mother-of-three, started swinging a metal baseball bat as she walked towards their courtyard door. The victim and her son tried to close the door as Edwards, pushing against it and damaging it as she made her way in, kept swinging the baseball bat wildly. She hit a mirror the victim had hung on an external wall, then struck a French door, shattering the safety glass panel. After damaging the door, she began aiming and swinging at the victim's son, in a vertical motion over her head, striking his left arm several times as he raised it to protect his head. When the victim tried to intervene, Edwards struck her on the hand with the bat. Edwards fled when a neighbour called out that police were on their way. About 45 minutes later, Edwards arrived at a Papanui address several kilometres away where the victim was home with her 6-year-old son and 15-year-old daughter. The victim recognised Edwards as she approached the open driveway gate with her hands hidden behind her back. As she smiled at the victim, Edwards asked her if a vehicle parked on the driveway belonged to her. At the same time she used a hammer to smash a rear window of the victim's vehicle. The victim was outraged and asked Edwards what she was doing. Edwards yelled at her, demanding that she come out, saying she was going to kill her and her kids. The victim, fearing for her children's safety, ran into her house to find her children. As Edwards continued smashing the windows, she yelled out to the victim, saying she was going to kill her. Nine windows were damaged as the victim managed to make it to her vehicle and flee. Edwards then left the property. Supermarket violence and car crash Those two incidents in 2024 weren't the first time Edwards had been violent. She was already on bail at the time for several other incidents. Judge Neave said the first was in September 2022 when Edwards attacked a woman and staff at a Christchurch supermarket. Edwards grabbed the woman's hair and pulled her to the ground while three staff members tried to intervene. She spat in the face of one staff member and punched another. The assault started after Edwards began arguing with the woman about the positioning of her trolley. In May 2023, she was involved in a minor crash with another vehicle in Christchurch. She ripped a windscreen wiper off the vehicle and punched the driver several times. The judge said the most serious charges, from the January 2024 incidents, would have left the victims terrified. There were no mitigating factors, with the number of people affected and the premeditated nature of the attacks on them in their own homes. 'You are not justified in revenge and attempts to inflict justice on your behalf.' Judge Neave said Edwards had become hypersensitive, her judgment impaired by her mental health, leading to a 'gross over-reaction', and rehabilitation needed to be considered. Edwards was sentenced to two years' intensive supervision and six months' community detention on charges of common assault, wilful damage, assault with intent to injure and threatening to kill. - By Al Williams, Open Justice reporter
Otago Daily Times
13 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Woman was already on bail when she launched series of violent attacks
By Al Williams, Open Justice reporter A woman who launched a series of violent assaults on people she knew, including brandishing weapons in front of young children, was on bail for violence-related charges. Nastasia Edwards' victims were all known to her and living at Christchurch addresses when she launched her attacks on January 14, 2024. Judge Raoul Neave described Edwards' behaviour as very serious offending when she appeared for sentencing on multiple charges, including assault and threatening to kill, in the Christchurch District Court last week. 'We had innocent members of the public attacked by her, there has to be some sort of protection.' The court heard that Edwards' first victim was at her St Martins home with her 7-year-old daughter and 20-year-old son when she saw Edwards standing in their driveway. Edwards, a mother-of-three, started swinging a metal baseball bat wildly as she walked towards their courtyard door. The victim and her son tried to close the door as Edwards, pushing against it and damaging it as she made her way in, kept swinging the baseball bat wildly. She hit a mirror the victim had hung on an external wall, then struck a French door, shattering the safety glass panel. After damaging the door, she began aiming and swinging at the victim's son, in a vertical motion over her head, striking his left arm several times as he raised it to protect his head. When the victim tried to intervene, Edwards struck her on the hand with the bat. Edwards fled when a neighbour called out that police were on their way. She was yelling and threatening to kill About 45 minutes later Edwards arrived at a Papanui address several kilometres away where the victim was home with her 6-year-old son and 15-year-old daughter. The victim recognised Edwards as she approached the open driveway gate with her hands hidden behind her back. As she smiled at the victim, Edwards asked her if a vehicle parked on the driveway belonged to her. At the same time she used a hammer to smash a rear window of the victim's vehicle. The victim was outraged and asked Edwards what she was doing. Edwards yelled at her, demanding that she come out, saying she was going to kill her and her kids. The victim, fearing for her children's safety, ran into her house to find her children. As Edwards continued smashing the windows, she yelled out to the victim, saying she was going to kill her. Nine windows were damaged as the victim managed to make it to her vehicle and flee. Edwards then left the property. Supermarket violence and a car crash But those two incidents in 2024 weren't the first time Edwards had been violent. She was already on bail at the time for several other incidents. Judge Neave said the first was in September 2022 when Edwards attacked a woman and staff at a Christchurch supermarket. Edwards grabbed the woman's hair and pulled her to the ground while three staff members tried to intervene. She spat in the face of one staff member and punched another. The assault started after Edwards began arguing with the woman about the positioning of her trolley. In May 2023 she was involved in a minor crash with another vehicle in Christchurch. She ripped a windscreen wiper off the vehicle and punched the driver several times. Judge Neave said the most serious charges, from the January 2024 incidents, would have left the victims terrified. He said there were no mitigating factors, with the number of people affected and the premeditated nature of the attacks on them in their own homes. 'You are not justified in revenge and attempts to inflict justice on your behalf.' Judge Neave said Edwards had become hypersensitive, her judgment impaired by her mental health, leading to a 'gross over-reaction'. Rehabilitation needed to be considered, he said. Edwards was sentenced to two years' intensive supervision and six months' community detention on charges of common assault, wilful damage, assault with intent to injure and threatening to kill.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Nastasia Edwards sentenced for violent assaults in Christchurch homes
The court heard that Edwards' first victim was at her St Martins home with her 7-year-old daughter and 20-year-old son when she saw Edwards standing in their driveway. Edwards, a mother-of-three, started swinging a metal baseball bat wildly as she walked towards their courtyard door. The victim and her son tried to close the door as Edwards, pushing against it and damaging it as she made her way in, kept swinging the baseball bat wildly. She hit a mirror the victim had hung on an external wall, then struck a French door, shattering the safety glass panel. After damaging the door, she began aiming and swinging at the victim's son, in a vertical motion over her head, striking his left arm several times as he raised it to protect his head. When the victim tried to intervene, Edwards struck her on the hand with the bat. Edwards fled when a neighbour called out that police were on their way. She was yelling and threatening to kill About 45 minutes later Edwards arrived at a Papanui address several kilometres away where the victim was home with her 6-year-old son and 15-year-old daughter. The victim recognised Edwards as she approached the open driveway gate with her hands hidden behind her back. As she smiled at the victim, Edwards asked her if a vehicle parked on the driveway belonged to her. At the same time she used a hammer to smash a rear window of the victim's vehicle. The victim was outraged and asked Edwards what she was doing. Edwards yelled at her, demanding that she come out, saying she was going to kill her and her kids. The victim, fearing for her children's safety, ran into her house to find her children. As Edwards continued smashing the windows, she yelled out to the victim, saying she was going to kill her. Nine windows were damaged as the victim managed to make it to her vehicle and flee. Edwards then left the property. Nastasia Edwards Supermarket violence and a car crash But, those two incidents in 2024 weren't the first time Edwards had been violent. She was already on bail at the time for several other incidents. Judge Neave said the first was in September 2022 when Edwards attacked a woman and staff at a Christchurch supermarket. Edwards grabbed the woman's hair and pulled her to the ground while three staff members tried to intervene. She spat in the face of one staff member and punched another. The assault started after Edwards began arguing with the woman about the positioning of her trolley. In May 2023 she was involved in a minor crash with another vehicle in Christchurch. She ripped a windscreen wiper off the vehicle and punched the driver several times. Judge Neave said the most serious charges, from the January 2024 incidents, would have left the victims terrified. He said there were no mitigating factors, with the number of people affected and the premeditated nature of the attacks on them in their own homes. 'You are not justified in revenge and attempts to inflict justice on your behalf.' Judge Neave said Edwards had become hypersensitive, her judgment impaired by her mental health, leading to a 'gross over-reaction'. Rehabilitation needed to be considered, he said. Edwards was sentenced to two years' intensive supervision and six months' community detention on charges of common assault, wilful damage, assault with intent to injure and threatening to kill.
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- General
- The Herald Scotland
Signs of trouble ahead for Glasgow's buildings
This is good news for several reasons. It protects a piece of historic architecture in a part of Glasgow – Possilpark – that's seen a lot of change, decline and neglect. It also recognises that, while the Vogue may not be the finest building ever, it is one of the last examples of architect James McKissack's work in cinemas in the 1930s and that makes it worthy of preserving. And perhaps most importantly, it means that if the owners want to develop the site, and it appears they do, they will have to incorporate the original cinema into their plans. That this is possible – keeping the cinema and developing the site at the same time – is beyond doubt, as the architect Alan Dunlop demonstrated when he prepared drawings outlining how it could be done. Mr Dunlop's suggestions show how you can combine something like an art deco cinema with something more modern and come up with a design that's practical and aesthetically pleasing. Old and new, working together. All good stuff. But even if we assume the Vogue has now been saved and will survive in some form, it's worth digging into the details of the ruling for it's in there that we find the signs of danger. The ruling was made by Alasdair Edwards, a reporter appointed by the government, and he essentially agrees with the decision of Historic Environment Scotland (HES) that the cinema is of special architectural or historic interest and should be listed. He does point out, in the euphemistic language of such reports, that the building has been subject to 'unsympathetic modifications' – it's a mess basically – but fortunately he can see beyond that to the building underneath, the building that's still there and is worth saving. Read more Will the 'Clydeside Clearance' go ahead? A court is about to decide | The Herald There's a price for gentrification. I've met the people paying it | The Herald Do not believe the middle-class moaning about private schools | The Herald The problems and signs of danger arise when he examines how we got to this point. Basically what happened is that the council originally granted a warrant to demolish the building and the owners went ahead and started. A member of the public then raised the alarm but HES said they wouldn't list the building because the council had issued the demolition warrant. As outrage grew, the council then appeared to have a change of heart and issued a building preservation order and HES restarted their process and decided second time around that the building should be listed after all. Mr Edwards is highly critical of all this in his report and rightly so. The owners of the Vogue argued at the original hearing that two different, inconsistent decisions were made by HES on the same facts which was unfair and the reporter has effectively agreed with that. Mr Edwards says in his report that HES did not explain its rationale for changing the decision on listing the Vogue which was 'unsatisfactory'. He also says the transparency of the decision-making was 'less than satisfactory'. Unsatisfactory. Less than satisfactory. All euphemisms for bad. The behaviour of the council was even worse. What emerged from the hearing is that there were no inspections, no checks and no real questions asked by the council before they issued the original permission to demolish the Vogue. It also looks like there was no system for council departments to properly talk to each other: building control, who issue the demolition warrants, did not communicate with planning, who are in charge of conservation, so no discussion took place on whether there were issues with the cinema that the council should be looking into. The Vogue (Image: Newsquest) Mr Edwards was not impressed by this. The fact, he said, that there was no formal communication between council staff regarding the application for demolition of the building was 'peculiar' (another of his euphemisms). He also said the lack of communication within the council meant a substantial amount of the building was removed, including features of architectural interest. In language more restrained than I would use, he concluded HES and the council 'could have handled the listing process better'. The real danger here – specifically for other buildings at risk – is that HES and the council don't act on the ruling and make the process better. In the case of HES, they appear to have refused to list the building the first time round because there was a demolition order in place which is the wrong way round. HES should be making its decisions on the merits of the buildings – either it's worth listing or it isn't – and should be communicating their decisions clearly and consistently. As for the council, it needs to have a serious look at its procedures and improve the communication between Building Standards and Planning. If the council had been more proactive in serving a preservation notice when the owners first applied to demolish the Vogue, this whole debacle might have been avoided. Having said all that, we do at least have a ruling that the Vogue must be preserved, which is great; as Mr Dunlop points out, any other decision would create a perverse incentive for owners to unilaterally demolish buildings before HES can carry out its assessments. But what we really need is a system that's robust and focused on protecting Glasgow's buildings. It's not about stopping development or even some demolition (some buildings have to come down). But it is about recognising that we nearly lost the Vogue because the current system is incoherent, inconsistent, confused and ineffective. So the next step is to fix it, before the next case comes along, and we end up with another pile of rubble.
USA Today
3 days ago
- Sport
- USA Today
Anthony Edwards casually roasted Nuggets in unfazed interaction with young fan
After a very productive summer, the Denver Nuggets, led by three-time MVP Nikola Jokić, are rightfully a first-tier NBA championship contender again. But before they try and capture their second title in four years, the Nuggets have some demons to conquer. First and foremost on that list are probably the Minnesota Timberwolves. For context, Minnesota ended Denver's bid for a repeat championship in 2024 by winning a second-round Game 7 on the road. The Timberwolves followed that postseason success up by sweeping the Nuggets last regular season, notably spoiling a historic 61-point triple-double from Jokić in the process. The Nuggets, of course, did defeat the Timberwolves in the playoffs en route to their first title in 2023, but they'll likely have to regain their top gear to replicate those results. The wonderful part about all of this recent heated history in this budding Western Conference rivalry? Minnesota talisman Anthony Edwards knows the Timberwolves have had the Nuggets' number lately. And he clearly relishes it. While the Nuggets' youngsters battled the Timberwolves' youth movement in a Summer League game on Saturday, a young Denver fan — who was notably wearing a Jamal Murray jersey — approached Edwards for an autograph. When someone tried to "warn" Edwards that the fan was a Nuggets fan, as if to dissuade Edwards from making any sort of positive gesture, the brash scorer had the perfect response to fan the flames of this rivalry. After all, why would Edwards be fazed in any way by the mere vision of a team he's enjoyed many triumphs over in the past calendar year? (Warning: NSFW language below) Man, if you're the Nuggets, do you even have a good rebuttal? Well, at least one that you could make right now? The only possible (and reasonable) way Jokić and Co. can respond is by beating Edwards' Timberwolves and taking the baton back in this rivalry. Something tells me we're in for a treat when Denver and Minnesota square off again next season. I can't wait.
