Legal Research
Cases
R v Williams

R v Williams

Case [2021] NZHC 1338 8 June 2021

Personal Circumstances

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-019-3685

[2021] NZHC 1338

THE QUEEN

v

RAYON MOHI WILLIAMS

Hearing: 8 June 2021

Appearances:

C K Whyte for the Crown

R J Laybourn for the Defendant

Date of sentence:

8 June 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF JAGOSE J

Counsel/Solicitors:
R J Laybourn, Barrister, Hamilton Hamilton Legal, Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

R v WILLIAMS [2021] NZHC 1338 [8 June 2021]

[1] On your guilty pleas Mr Williams, Gault J entered convictions against you in this Court on 21 April 20211 on one representative charge and one specific charge of money laundering.2 The Crown offers no evidence on the balance of its charges against you, and I dismiss them.

[2] I now am to sentence you for your convictions. In sentencing you, I must accept as proven all facts essential to your guilty pleas.3 The Crown acknowledges a sentence of home detention may be appropriate. Your lawyer, Roger Laybourn, recommends the same. I am not bound by their views. I am to come to my own decision. I must satisfy myself of the appropriate sentence for the gravity (or seriousness) of your offending, including your culpability (or responsibility) for it.

Background

[3]I briefly address the background to your offending.

[4] On 20 January 2020, the Waikato Police Organised Crime Squad began an investigation into the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine in the Waikato and Auckland regions. That investigation uncovered what police characterise as a “highly organised and lucrative drug dealing business”.

[5] You are one of 29 people arrested in connection with the investigation. You are said to have been in the “third tier” of that group, not having a leading role in its organisation, but facilitative of its operation. You had access to “substantial amounts” of cash. You used a “very expensive” satellite telephone that prevented your communications from being intercepted. You are said to have had a financial interest in the drug offending. You worked closely with the group’s leadership, in particular discussing and demonstrating the purchase and balance of cryptocurrency accounts.

[6] Your own cryptocurrency wallet has not been located. Any amounts of cryptocurrency purchased or held by you cannot be identified. You last were employed in January 2019. You have had no legitimate source of income since then. Instead, you

1      R v Williams HC Hamilton CRI-2020-019-3685, 21 April 2021 (Minute of Gault J) at [1].
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 243(2). Maximum penalty: seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Sentencing Act 2002, s 24(1)(b).

profited from the group’s methamphetamine supply business. Your bank accounts disclose numerous cash deposits of between $150 and $1,700, each made by an unknown individual or individuals.

[7] Your apparent transfer of $5,000 in cryptocurrency to an associate’s wallet, to demonstrate to yet another associate how cryptocurrency transactions work, gave rise to the representative charge of money laundering. On 10 June last year, you bought a Harley Davidson motorcycle from an unknown person in Tauranga. You paid
$26,750 in…

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 [2021] NZHC 1338
Case: [2021] NZHC 1338
Decision Date: 8 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry. Rayon Mohi Williams pleaded guilty to charges of money laundering associated with a methamphetamine manufacturing and supply operation. The court accepted the guilty pleas and dismissed the remaining charges against Williams. The sentencing phase of the trial involved determining an appropriate sentence for the convictions, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The court was required to assess the gravity of the offending, Williams' culpability, and personal circumstances, including his history of criminal activity, remorse, and background. The court applied a two-stage approach to sentencing, first identifying a starting point for the type of offending and then adjusting for personal factors and the guilty plea.

The court found Williams to have played a significant role in the methamphetamine-related offending, facilitating the operation by managing cryptocurrency accounts and demonstrating their use to others. This led to the establishment of a starting point of three years and three months' imprisonment, considering the seriousness of the principal offending and Williams' involvement. The court considered personal factors such as Williams' remorse, the impact of his childhood trauma, and the time he spent on electronically monitored bail without incident. A discount of 20% for the guilty plea and 5% for personal factors resulted in a final sentence of two years and one month's imprisonment, which did not qualify for home detention.

Orders