R v Warren - [2018] NZHC 1370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE

CRI-2017-018-000681 [2018] NZHC 1370

THE QUEEN

v

GEORGE SEAN WARREN

Hearing: 8 June 2018

Appearances:

C Boshier for the Crown

P J Shamy and B P Shamy for the Defendant

Judgment:

11 June 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] I have carefully read again the victim impact reports which were provided to me before the sentencing indication. I have also received some information from Hayley Williams’ sons. Please thank them for what they wrote. I can see how hard it must have been for them to do so but that is true for everyone who has provided statements. In the interests of the emotional welfare and privacy of the children, I make an order under s 27(2)(b) of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 that the statements of the children and accompanying material are not to be released to the media.

[2] Mr Warren, you and the family of Hayley Williams know what your sentence is going to be. As you requested, I indicated to you what your sentence would be if you pleaded guilty to Hayley Williams’ murder. You did eventually plead guilty on the basis of that indication. Although you know what the sentence is going to be, it is

R v WARREN [2018] NZHC 1370 [11 June 2018]

important that I explain in public and in this community what you are being sentenced for and how I have arrived at your sentence.

[3] You pleaded guilty on the basis of an agreed summary of facts as to what happened. That summary is today being made available to the media, but I point out to the media that it is only information in the redacted summary of facts that can be published. Certain details in the summary of facts on which you pleaded guilty are being suppressed. Those details do not, in any way, change the details of the murder as far as you are concerned.

[4] On 28 September 2017, you turned up at Hayley Williams’ address uninvited. She alleged you indecently assaulted her in front of one of her children. In an interview soon afterwards, her son told a specialist child interviewer that a scary man came to his house and was trying to touch his mother and was saying really gross stuff to her.

[5] Hayley Williams made a complaint to the Police. On 2 October 2017, you were arrested and charged with indecent assault. You were released on Court bail conditions. These included that you were not to have contact with Hayley Williams or go within 300 metres of her home address.

[6] You were incensed at the charge and on several occasions between 2 October 2017 and 22 October 2017 made comments to the effect that you felt like killing her.

[7] On Friday 20 October 2017, you met with your lawyer. You told the Police that your lawyer told you the maximum prison sentence for…

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 Warren

Details

AGLC: R v Warren [2018] NZHC 1370
Case: [2018] NZHC 1370
Decision Date: 11 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v George Sean Warren was heard. Warren was charged with the murder of Hayley Williams, an offence he pleaded guilty to on the basis of a pre-sentence indication by the court. The primary legal issue before the court was determining the appropriate sentence for the murder, including whether the mandatory minimum term under Section 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 applied, and if so, how long it should be.

The court examined the circumstances of the murder, which involved Warren obtaining a rifle and shooting Williams after she reported him for indecent assault. The court considered the aggravating factors, including the premeditation, the callousness of the act, and Warren's history of violent offending. The defence argued that the minimum term should be less than 17 years, but the court found that the nature of the offence warranted the mandatory minimum term. The court also considered the mitigating factor of Warren's early guilty plea, which resulted in a discount of two years, bringing the minimum term to 17 years. The court concluded that a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17 years was appropriate, reflecting the gravity of the crime and the risk Warren posed to the community.

The final orders of the court were that Warren be sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Hayley Williams, with a non-parole period of 17 years. Additionally, under the three strikes legislation, Warren received a warning that any future serious violent offences would result in a sentence without the possibility of parole.

Orders