R v Williams - [2022] NZHC 2206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2021-209-000241

[2022] NZHC 2206

THE QUEEN

v

ARMANI WILLIAMS

Hearing: 31 August 2022

Appearances:

K A White for the Crown E Huda for the Defendant

Judgment:

31 August 2022

SENTENCING REMARKS OF NATION J

[1] I am going to begin my remarks by acknowledging all of you who have read victim impact statements and those who wrote them, even the statements that weren’t read. It is not hard to see the pain that you have all endured and that was apparent in what you have said. What I hope is, from today, you will find the strength to move on and really, I suppose, honour Levi through demonstrating that strength amongst each other so that you can make what you want to and need to of your lives as he would have wanted for you and, of course, as he would have expected.

[2] Levi sounds like a special young man. I acknowledge that, with what happened, what some of you witnessed, what those of you had to go through when he was taken off life support, with the way he died, you have memories and a sadness which will never go away.

R v WILLIAMS [2022] NZHC 2206 [31 August 2022]

[3] I also want to acknowledge the whanau and support people who are here for [Armani]. He is fortunate to have your support because this Court sometimes sees people who are in the gravest of trouble, as [Armani] is, and they have no one who comes to Court for them. But you also have a responsibility to him, and indeed Levi’s family, to show that he can have no respect for what he did. You have to do everything you can to make sure that there is no recurrence of this and that no other family has to go through what Levi’s family is going through.

[4] But, to Levi’s family, you will understand that no sentence I impose can make up for your loss. I am sure that you understand that, with a manslaughter charge, I cannot sentence Armani as if he had intended to kill Levi or thought this could happen, or did not care whether that was the result and consciously took the risk that Levi might be killed. He cannot be sentenced as if he was reckless in the way necessary for someone to be guilty of murder.

[5] Armani, you know I am going to sentence you to imprisonment. Because I have to explain what I am doing, my remarks will take a little time. So, I am just going to talk to you to start with in simple terms.

[6] You are 17. You were in the Youth Court a number of times because of your violence. Your pre-sentence report says that, with you, there is a high risk you will harm others given your propensity for violence.

[7] You have killed a young man…

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 2206
Case: [2022] NZHC 2206
Decision Date: 31 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the Crown brought a charge against Armani Williams for the manslaughter of Levi Haami. Levi was killed after Williams punched him in the head, causing him to fall to the ground unconscious. Levi was taken off life support and died the following day. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for Williams, considering his age, prior offending history, and potential for rehabilitation. Williams had a history of violent offending in the Youth Court, which demonstrated a high risk of reoffending. However, the court also considered his young age and the potential for rehabilitation, taking into account the pre-sentence report and submissions from both parties. The court determined a starting point sentence of five years' imprisonment, reduced by 20% for Williams' guilty plea and a further 10% for his youth and background matters. This resulted in a final sentence of three years' imprisonment.

The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and preventing reoffending, highlighting Williams' potential for positive change and the support available to him. The court also acknowledged the impact of the offence on Levi's family and the need for Williams to take responsibility for his actions. The final sentence imposed on Williams was three years' imprisonment, with the hope that he would learn from his mistakes and avoid further offending in the future.

Orders