Legal Research
Cases
R v Williams

R v Williams

Case [2022] NZHC 3298 8 December 2022

Participation in an Organised Criminal Group

Youth Discount

Guilty Pleas Discount

Personal Background Factors

Criminal Law

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 3298

THE KING

v

JAMES WILLIAMS

Date of hearing: 8 December 2022

Appearances:

C P Howard for the Crown

I Jayanandan for Mr Williams

Date of sentence:

8 December 2022

SENTENCING NOTES OF JAGOSE J

Counsel/Solicitors:
I Jayanandan, Barrister, Auckland Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau

R v WILLIAMS [2022] NZHC 3298 [8 December 2022]

[1] Mr Williams, 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] You pleaded guilty to those charges after I indicated to others charged with the same offending they were likely to be sentenced to imprisonment for periods of five to eight years, subject to personal mitigating factors.4 Two of those others have also since pleaded guilty, and I have sentenced them in accordance with my indications.5 Parity means my indications will apply also to you.6

Your offending

[3] I need first to cover off the background to your offending, to let people know the conduct for which I am sentencing you.

[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 was limited. You were a member of your gang’s Facebook Messenger group chat, on which the incidents were co-ordinated. You conducted surveillance of some of the targeted locations and messaged Mr Crawford with relevant information. You were arrested some days later, in one of the cars involved in the incident 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 [14]. After Mr Williams’ sentencing, the prosecution was given leave to withdraw charges 5 and 8 against him as set out in the Crown’s Charge List of 15 June 2021.
5      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 116(2). R v Cassidy [2022] NZHC 2918 at [28]; and R v Nelson- Bell [2022] NZHC 2796 at [30].
6      Sentencing Act 2002, s 8(e).

[6] People living at two of the targeted addresses have filed statements explaining the extreme terror they felt for themselves and for their children and grandchildren at risk of being shot in the vicinity of their homes, including bullet damage to their houses. Your offending had continuing impact on their feelings of safety and confidence in their neighbourhood…

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 [2022] NZHC 3298
Case: [2022] NZHC 3298
Decision Date: 8 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James Williams was sentenced for his involvement in a series of firearms incidents in Auckland’s Ōtara that occurred in November 2020. Williams pleaded guilty to three counts of intentional damage, participation in an organised criminal group, and aggravated burglary. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for Williams, taking into consideration the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as his personal background and mitigating factors.

The court began by establishing a starting point for the sentence, considering the aggravating and mitigating features of the offending. The court then adjusted the starting point to account for Williams' personal circumstances, including his age, criminal history, and background. The court noted that while Williams played a lesser role in the intentional damage offences, his involvement was significant and contributed to the success of the plan.

The court applied a 25% discount for Williams' guilty pleas, a 20% discount for his youth, and a 15% discount for his personal background factors. After considering all the mitigating and aggravating factors, the court determined that a sentence of 12 months' home detention was the least restrictive outcome appropriate in the circumstances, while holding Williams accountable for his part in the group offending and promoting his sense of responsibility for the harm caused.

The court sentenced Williams to 12 months' home detention at his family's residence in Auckland's Clover Park, with special conditions proposed by the Department of Corrections and Ms. Lutui. The sentence recognises the need for accountability, responsibility, and rehabilitation, while also considering the desirability of keeping Williams in the community.

Orders