Legal Research
Cases
R v Nelson-Bell

R v Nelson-Bell

Case [2022] NZHC 2796 27 October 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-092-11754

[2022] NZHC 2796

THE KING

v

WILLIAM NELSON-BELL

Date of hearing: 27 October 2022

Appearances:

C P Howard for the Crown V Letele for Mr Nelson-Bell

Date of sentence:

27 October 2022

SENTENCING COMMENTS OF JAGOSE J

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau Law and Justice Limited, Auckland

R v NELSON-BELL [2022] NZHC 2796 [27 October 2022]

[1] Mr Nelson-Bell, as you know, I am today to sentence you on your convictions for intentional damage (x 3),1 participation in an organised criminal group2 and aggravated burglary.3

[2] Your guilty pleas to those charges followed my indication you were likely to be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of no more than six years,4 which indication allowed I had yet to apply any personal mitigating factors to you, which could be significant in your case. Subject to any influential new information, that indication is now binding on me.5

Your offending

[3] I need first to cover off the background to your offending, so that people in the room understand what it is that I am sentencing you for.

[4] During daylight hours on 20 November 2020, there were a series of linked firearms incidents in Auckland’s Ōtara. These were in apparent inter-gang retaliation for actions carried out against another member of your gang, Michael Crawford, who led the offending. The incidents included drive-by shootings at three Ōtara addresses, leading to the intentional damage charges against you, and an armed home invasion at a fourth address, leading to the aggravated burglary charge against you. All were of properties associated with the other gang.

[5] Your personal involvement is difficult to discern from the summary of facts. You were a member of your gang’s Facebook Messenger group chat, on which the incidents were co-ordinated. You were arrested some days later, driving one of the cars involved in the incidents and in which then were found shotgun shells. And, obviously, you have pleaded guilty.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 269(1): maximum penalty, 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 98A: maximum penalty, 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 232: maximum penalty, 14 years’ imprisonment.
4      R v Cassidy [2022] NZHC 1951 at [21].
5      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 116(2).

[6] Presumably because of the inter-gang nature of the offending, I have no victim impact statements to consider. That is, frankly, as short-sighted as the offending itself.6

Personal circumstances

[7] You will turn 20 years old in a few weeks. This is your first brush with adult court, having turned 18 years old on the day of the offending. You are the father of a young child, of whom your grandparents have custody as they previously had of you. You presently are remanded on electronically-monitored bail to Grace Foundation, a faith-based rehabilitation centre.

—criminal history

[8] A charge of assault with intention to commit sexual violation in September 2019 was found proven against you in the Youth Court on…

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 Nelson-Bell

Details

AGLC: R v Nelson-Bell [2022] NZHC 2796
Case: [2022] NZHC 2796
Decision Date: 27 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case R v Nelson-Bell before the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland involved William Nelson-Bell, who was convicted of multiple charges including intentional damage, participation in an organised criminal group, and aggravated burglary. The defendant's involvement in these crimes stemmed from a series of retaliatory gang-related incidents in Ōtara, Auckland, which included drive-by shootings and an armed home invasion. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for Nelson-Bell, considering his personal circumstances and the nature of his criminal activities.

The primary legal issues revolved around establishing a suitable starting point for the sentence based on the severity of the crimes and then adjusting this point to reflect Nelson-Bell’s personal mitigating factors. The court needed to balance the need for accountability and deterrence against the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society, particularly given Nelson-Bell's young age and his participation in a faith-based rehabilitation program.

The court's reasoning began with a starting point derived from a comparison with a co-offender's sentence, which was then adjusted downwards due to Nelson-Bell's lesser role and his youth. The court recognised the significant impact of Nelson-Bell's dysfunctional upbringing and gang involvement, which had impaired his decision-making. Additionally, the court noted his engagement in rehabilitation efforts at Grace Foundation, which provided a basis for a substantial discount on his sentence. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of one year's home detention with active participation in rehabilitation programs would best serve the purposes of sentencing while offering Nelson-Bell a chance for reform.

The final order of the court was that Nelson-Bell be sentenced to one year's home detention, with the condition that he participate in active rehabilitation programs at Grace Foundation. The court emphasized that this lenient sentence was contingent upon Nelson-Bell's continued engagement in rehabilitation and warned him against reverting to his previous lifestyle.

Orders