R v Williams - [2022] NZHC 1712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI 2020-019-005265

[2022] NZHC 1712

THE QUEEN

v

JUDIANNE RAUPUTIPUTI WILLIAMS

Hearing: 18 July 2022

Appearances:

D Young for the Crown

G A Walsh for Ms Williams

Sentencing:

18 July 2022

ORAL SENTENCING NOTES OF VAN BOHEMEN J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
G A Walsh, Barrister, Hamilton

R v WILLIAMS [2022] NZHC 1712 [18 July 2022]

Introduction1

[1] Judianne Rauputiputi Williams, you appear today for sentencing having pleaded guilty to representative charges of supplying methamphetamine and of offering to supply methamphetamine,2 and to a charge of participating in an organised criminal group.3

[2] The maximum penalty is life imprisonment for the two methamphetamine- related charges4 and 10 years’ imprisonment for the participation charge.5

[3] You face two further charges of conspiring to supply methamphetamine6 and possessing methamphetamine for supply.7 The Crown has not offered evidence on those charges and invites me to dismiss them under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. I do so accordingly.

[4] My responsibility today is to sentence you on the three charges to which you have pleaded guilty.

[5]This is the process I will follow:

(a)First, I will outline the circumstances of your offending.

(b)Secondly, I will consider your personal circumstances relevant to the sentence.

1      Prior to imposing this sentence, Mr Walsh, counsel for Ms Williams submitted that, because rehabilitation courses in prisons were suspended because of the COVID-19 pandemic, I should defer Ms Williams’ sentencing to enable her to apply for a residential course such as at Odyssey House which she could attend on EM bail prior to being sentenced. I declined to do so. I said the pandemic affected everyone and it would become unmanageable to try and deal with individual cases that way.
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c); and Crimes Act 1961, s 66.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.
4      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(2)(a).
5      Section 98A(1).
6      Section 6(2A).
7      Section 6(1)(f).

(c)Thirdly, I will explain the approach to setting the sentences and discuss the requirements of the Sentencing Act 2002 as they apply in this case and in accordance with decisions of the Court of Appeal.

(d)Finally, I will impose the sentence I consider appropriate.

The offending

[6] Ms Williams, you were charged in relation to Operation Gulfport, a Police investigation into the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine in the Waikato region. The investigation identified an organised criminal enterprise involved in the large-scale manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine in the Waikato.

[7] Your co-defendants Richard Heller, James Smith and Michael Ormsby were identified as the operation leaders. Mr Ormsby, a senior member of the Mongrel Mob Waikato chapter, was identified as the financier. He sat above the others and allowed them to undertake the day-to-day activities relating to the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine.

[8] Mr Heller, who is or was your partner and is a senior member of the Mongrel Mob…

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 1712
Case: [2022] NZHC 1712
Decision Date: 18 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Judianne Rauputiputi Williams appeared in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry, for sentencing following her guilty pleas to charges of supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, as well as participating in an organised criminal group. The Crown had not presented evidence on two additional charges, which the court dismissed. The court outlined its sentencing process, including reviewing the circumstances of the offending, the offender's personal background, and the appropriate sentence based on the Sentencing Act 2002. Williams was part of a methamphetamine supply operation led by her partner, Richard Heller, and others. She supplied methamphetamine on at least 74 occasions and offered to supply on 16 occasions, involving at least 392.55 grams of the drug. The court considered Williams' personal circumstances, including her extensive criminal history, her role in the operation, and her cultural background. It found that her offending was significantly influenced by her difficult upbringing, experiences of sexual abuse, and involvement in violent relationships. The court accepted a discount of 17% for these personal circumstances, resulting in a starting point of five years and four months' imprisonment. After applying a 25% discount for her guilty pleas and deducting time spent on electronically monitored bail, the final sentence was four years and eight months' imprisonment, with no minimum period of imprisonment imposed. The court also remitted outstanding fines totalling $2,077.00.

Orders