R v Williams - [2022] NZHC 2660

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CRI-2020-070-1763

[2022] NZHC 2660

THE KING

v

CHARLENE WILLIAMS

Hearing: 14 October 2022

Appearances:

J M Sutton for Crown

N M Dutch for Defendant

Judgment:

14 October 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

R v CHARLENE WILLIAMS [2022] NZHC 2660 [14 October 2022]

[1] Ms Williams, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to two charges of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply,1 one charge of conspiring to supply methamphetamine2 and one charge of being in unlawful possession of a firearm.3 The Crown offers no evidence on the remaining charges that you face and I now make an order under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 discharging you on those charges.

[2] You entered your pleas after receiving a sentence indication from me on 5 August 2022.4 I indicated a starting point on all charges of three years nine months imprisonment.5 I also indicated that a discount of 25 per cent, or 11 months, would be available to reflect guilty pleas.6

[3] It is now necessary to consider whether, and if so to what extent, the sentence should be reduced to reflect other mitigating factors identified in the material now before the Court. If the end sentence is less than two years imprisonment it will be necessary for me to determine whether the sentence should be converted to one of home detention.

The sentence indication

[4] It is not necessary for me to repeat the factual basis underpinning the charges. I set this out in my sentence indication.7 My sentence indication will be annexed to, and form part of, these remarks.

[5] In short, I found that you were in close contact with those towards the top of the drug dealing organisation with which you were involved. You were a retail dealer in methamphetamine, albeit not at a street level. These factors persuaded me that the appropriate starting point on the drug-related charges was one of three years three months imprisonment.8 I then added an uplift of six months to reflect the fact that,

1      Sections 6(1)(f) and 6(2).
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2A).
3      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1).
4      R v Williams [2022] NZHC 1926.
5 At [14].
6 At [17].
7      At [4]-[8].
8 At [12].

when the police searched your property, they found three firearms.9 You were unlawfully in possession of these because you do not hold a firearms licence.

[6] Finally, I indicated I would apply a discount of 11 months, or 25 per cent, to reflect guilty pleas.10 This resulted in an indicated sentence of two years ten months imprisonment before taking into account such other mitigating factors as may be identified at sentencing.

Additional mitigating factors

[7]On your behalf Mr Dutch advances three further mitigating factors. These are:

(a)Factors relating to your background identified in a report tendered under s 27 of the Sentencing…

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 2660
Case: [2022] NZHC 2660
Decision Date: 14 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams involved the defendant, Charlene Williams, who was sentenced for multiple drug-related charges and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Williams, taking into account her guilty pleas, her background, rehabilitative efforts, and time spent on bail. The legal issues revolved around setting a starting point for the sentence, applying discounts for guilty pleas and other mitigating factors, and deciding whether home detention was a suitable alternative to imprisonment. The court considered Williams' background, which included a dysfunctional family environment, early involvement in substance abuse, and a history of gang association. It also recognized her efforts to rehabilitate herself and the time she had spent under restrictive bail conditions. The court concluded that a sentence of eight months home detention was appropriate, reflecting her response to bail conditions and her rehabilitative efforts. This decision effectively balanced the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, considering the totality of Williams' circumstances.

Orders