R v Williams - [2025] NZHC 800

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-004-006629

[2025] NZHC 800

THE KING

v

SERGIO FEDERICO WILLIAMS

Hearing: 8 April 2025

Appearances:

C Paterson and R Thompson for the Crown L Smith for the Defendant

Sentenced:

8 April 2025

SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDERSON J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

R v WILLIAMS [2025] NZHC 800 [8 April 2025]

Sentence

[1] Mr Williams, you appear for sentence having been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Herbert Bradley on 23 August 2023.1

[2] Before we begin, I want to acknowledge the family of Mr Bradley and their supporters who are here today. I extend the Court’s utmost sympathy to you for losing Mr Bradley in such terrible circumstances.

[3] Mr Williams, when a person is convicted of murder, they are required to be sentenced to life imprisonment unless there are special circumstances which mean that a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust.2 Your counsel says this is such a case and that I should instead impose a finite sentence. The Crown says a sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate and that the minimum term of 10 years should be imposed.

Facts of the offending

[4] Before addressing these submissions, I first summarise the facts of your offending as I have found them. You met Mr Bradley in July 2023 in a chance encounter, some weeks prior to his death. At that time Mr Bradley was 70 years old. He was experiencing some cognitive decline and had some underlying health issues. He was living in the Uptown Apartments in Upper Queen Street with Ms Bradley, his adult daughter. Mr Bradley invited you to stay with him in the apartment while your car was getting fixed. Mr Bradley’s daughter went to stay with a friend so that Mr Bradley could have her room while you occupied his room.

[5] At some point, you invited Sophie Rutland to stay at the apartment who you had met on Facebook. The three of you lived together in the apartment for approximately 13 days.

[6] On the night before Mr Bradley’s death you and Ms Rutland had been out at the home of one of your friends. You had an argument about how Ms Rutland had

1 Pursuant to s 167 of the Crimes Act 1961.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 172 and Sentencing Act 2002, s 10.

been interacting with one of your friends. In your words she was “playing up” and you got pretty angry at her. The argument recommenced the following morning, 23 August 2023.

[7] Mr Bradley was there when you got up. He and Ms Rutland sat on the couch having coffee while you had a shower. You could hear them talking and laughing. You opened the bathroom door and blurted out something. You were tense and wound up. Mr Bradley went and got a knife from the kitchen and held it behind his back. By this time…

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 Williams

Details

AGLC: R v Williams [2025] NZHC 800
Case: [2025] NZHC 800
Decision Date: 8 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Williams involved the sentencing of Sergio Federico Williams, who was found guilty of the murder of Herbert Bradley on August 23, 2023. Williams was sentenced on April 8, 2025, following a hearing where C Paterson and R Thompson represented the Crown, and L Smith appeared for the defendant. The court had to determine whether Williams' sentence should be life imprisonment or a finite term, given his counsel's argument that a life sentence would be manifestly unjust, and the Crown's contention for a life sentence with a minimum term of 10 years.

The legal issues centered on whether the circumstances of the murder warranted a sentence other than life imprisonment. Williams' counsel argued that the circumstances were unique, citing that Mr. Bradley had brought the knife and attacked with it, suggesting excessive self-defense. The court considered the mitigating factors such as Williams' difficult childhood and substance use disorders but ultimately found that these did not meet the threshold for manifest injustice. The court reasoned that while Mr. Bradley did present the knife, Williams' aggressive behavior and subsequent actions, including his failure to seek help for Mr. Bradley, led to the conclusion that a life sentence was appropriate.

Anderson J, who presided over the case, found that the circumstances did not sufficiently justify a finite sentence despite the mitigating factors presented. The judge considered the vulnerability of Mr. Bradley, the severity of the harm caused, and Williams' criminal history in determining the minimum non-parole period. Ultimately, the court sentenced Williams to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years, acknowledging the need for accountability, deterrence, and denunciation of the crime.

Orders