Legal Research
Cases
R v Jefferies-Smith

R v Jefferies-Smith

Case [2019] NZHC 2067 22 August 2019

Mens Rea & Intention

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2018-070-000050

[2019] NZHC 2067

THE QUEEN

v

COLIN RICHARD JEFFERIES-SMITH CASEINO HETA WILLIAMS

Hearing: 22 August 2019

Appearances:

A J Pollett for the Crown

M A Edgar for Jefferies-Smith J Holmes for Williams

Sentencing:

22 August 2019

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Pollett Legal Ltd (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Tauranga

Counsel: M Edgar, Barrister, Auckland

J Holmes, Barrister, Tauranga

R v JEFFERIES-SMITH [2019] NZHC 2067 [22 August 2019]

[1] Colin Jefferies-Smith and Caseino Williams, you are for sentence today following a six week jury trial in the Rotorua High Court, which commenced on 6 May 2019. At the conclusion of the trial on 17 June 2019, you, Mr Jefferies-Smith, were found guilty of manslaughter and, you, Mr Williams, were found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm and being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter.

[2]You, Mr Jefferies-Smith, have subsequently pleaded guilty to five charges of:

(a)Possession of methamphetamine for supply;1

(b)Offering to supply methamphetamine;2

(c)Supplying methamphetamine;3

(d)Offering to supply cannabis;4 and

(e)Possession of cannabis for sale.5

You are to be sentenced on these charges today as well.

[3]Mr Williams, you also subsequently pleaded guilty to eight charges of:

(a)Injuring with reckless disregard (x 2);6

(b)Assault with a firearm;7

(c)Male assaults female (representative);8

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(a). The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a). The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
3      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(c) and 6(2)(a). The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(e) and 6(2)(c). The maximum penalty is eight years’ imprisonment.
5      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(c). The maximum penalty is eight years’ imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2). The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
7      Crimes Act 1961, s 189(2). The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
8      Crimes Act 1961, s 194(b). The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment.

(d)Assault with a weapon;9

(e)Threatening to kill (x 2);10 and

(f)Assault with intent to injure.11

You too are to be sentenced today on these charges.

Summary of facts

[4] Mr Jefferies-Smith was a low-level dealer in methamphetamine and cannabis. The deceased was the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob. Mr Jefferies-Smith had failed to complete a drug transaction, which resulted in a witness, Wihapi, being $2,000 out of pocket. The deceased then took Mr Jefferies- Smith’s car from him as a “taxing” exercise. The taxing took place prior to 5.30 pm on 31 December 2017. Mr Jefferies-Smith subsequently paid money and drugs to the deceased and appears to have believed that this would result in the return of his car.

[5] Over the following days, Mr Jefferies-Smith grew increasingly angry about not getting his car back and began to consider using violence, as evidenced in a text message in which he said…

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 Jefferies-Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Jefferies-Smith [2019] NZHC 2067
Case: [2019] NZHC 2067
Decision Date: 22 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Colin Jefferies-Smith and Caseino Williams were sentenced following a six-week trial in which Jefferies-Smith was found guilty of manslaughter, while Williams was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm and being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter. Both defendants subsequently pleaded guilty to a number of additional charges. The court had to decide on appropriate sentences for both defendants. The court found that a starting point of ten years' imprisonment was appropriate for the manslaughter charge against Jefferies-Smith, which was reduced to nine years' imprisonment after a 10% discount for his early indication of a willingness to plead guilty. The court imposed a sentence of two years' imprisonment for the drug offences, to be served cumulatively with the manslaughter sentence, resulting in a total sentence of 11 years' imprisonment. For Williams, the court imposed a starting point of three years' imprisonment for the firearms charge and 18 months' imprisonment for the accessory charge, to be served cumulatively, resulting in a total sentence of three years and one month's imprisonment for the charges on which he was found guilty at trial. The court imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment for the family violence charges, to be served cumulatively with the sentence for the charges from trial, resulting in a total sentence of six years and one month's imprisonment. The court made an order for the destruction of the firearm and ammunition produced at trial and made a protection order against Williams in favour of his former partner and her son.

Orders