R v Williams - [2019] NZHC 2832

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES,

OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIM PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2019-096-2679

[2019] NZHC 2832

THE QUEEN

v

STEPHEN WILLIAMS

Hearing: 1 November 2019

Counsel:

G J Burston for Crown

B Crowley as standby counsel

Judgment:

1 November 2019

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J (SENTENCING NOTES)

Introduction

[1] Mr Williams, you are for sentence on one charge of attempted murder.1 It is a third strike offence, which renders you liable for the maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, to be served without parole, unless that would be manifestly unjust.2

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 173.
2 Sentencing Act 2002, ss 86D(2) and (3).

R v WILLIAMS (SENTENCING NOTES) [2019] NZHC 2832 [1 November 2019]

[2] The Crown in this case seeks preventive detention which is an indefinite sentence. If a sentence of preventive detention is imposed, you must serve a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of not less than 14 years, unless I am satisfied that the imposition of such a MPI would be manifestly unjust.3

Facts

[3]I turn now to the facts of this case.

[4] This offence was committed at Rimutaka Prison. Before I describe it, I will address your first and second strike offences, both of which also involved very serious violence. They also have close similarities with this current offence in that they were callous, brutal and cowardly.

First strike

[5] Your first strike offence occurred while you were in Ngawha Prison in Northland. The reason that you were in prison is that you were sentenced to life imprisonment with an MPI of 15 years in 2004 for the murder of your partner’s daughter. On 8 August 2014, in Ngawha Prison, you went up behind a fellow prisoner, grabbed him in a headlock, and stabbed him repeatedly in the face and neck with a sharpened toothbrush, continuing despite other prisoners urging you to stop.

[6] The writer of your pre-sentence report indicated that you explained that you intended to kill the victim and, rather than expressing remorse for the harm you caused, you were disappointed that you had failed to kill him.

[7] Judge Sinclair adopted a starting point of seven years’ imprisonment.4 After uplifts for aggravating features and then a discount of 25 per cent for your guilty plea, the Judge imposed a sentence of five years and eight months’ imprisonment.5 However, as you were serving an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment, a cumulative sentence could not be imposed.6

3      Section 86D(7).
4      R v Williams DC Auckland CRI-2014-027-1309, 26 November 2014 at [13].
5      At [15]-[16].
6      At [17]-[18]; Sentencing Act, s 23.

Second strike

[8] Your second strike offence occurred on 11 December 2016, while an inmate at Auckland Prison, you committed the second strike offence. A fellow inmate had come to your cell to get tattoos on his back. He was sitting with his back to…

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 [2019] NZHC 2832
Case: [2019] NZHC 2832
Decision Date: 1 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Stephen Williams, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, Stephen Williams was sentenced for an attempted murder offence committed while in prison. This was Williams' third strike offence, making him liable for the maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment, to be served without parole unless it would be manifestly unjust. The court considered the legal issues involved in sentencing, including the three strikes regime and the possibility of imposing preventive detention.

The court concluded that imposing a sentence of preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of 14 years would not be manifestly unjust. The court found that Williams had a history of violent offending, with five prior convictions for violence, including murder and attempted murder. The court also found that Williams was likely to commit another qualifying violent offence if released, based on the assessments of two psychiatrists. The court determined that preventive detention was the most appropriate sentence to protect the community from Williams, as he continued to pose a significant and ongoing risk to the safety of its members.

The final orders of the court were to sentence Stephen Williams to preventive detention on the charge of attempted murder, with a minimum term of 14 years' imprisonment, to run concurrently with his existing sentences. The court also directed that its sentencing notes be provided to the prison authorities, along with the reports of the psychiatrists, and recommended that these reports be read by the prison authorities when considering Williams' security status.

Orders