R v Williams - [2018] NZHC 2731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-004-7162

[2018] NZHC 2731

THE QUEEN

v

BRYAN WALTER THOMAS WILLIAMS

Hearing: 18 October 2018

Appearances:

J Murdoch for Crown

M S Gibson and S Brickell for Mr Williams

Sentence:

18 October 2018

SENTENCING REMARKS OF PETERS J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Counsel:M S Gibson, Auckland S Brickell, Auckland

R v WILLIAMS [2018] NZHC 2731 [18 October 2018]

[1] Mr Williams, you are for sentence having pleaded guilty to one representative charge of money laundering.

Offending

[2] Your offending arises from the matters for which I have just sentenced Mr Ralph Wilk. Put simply, as I understand it, your role was to deliver cash from those buying the Wilks’ cocaine to the Wilks themselves.

[3] You met one or both of the Wilks on various occasions between 17 November 2016 and 13 July 2017, during which time you gave them an estimated $400,000 in cash.

[4] You also assisted them in other ways, and involving other sums. First, the Wilks told you they would rather be paid in US, rather than New Zealand, dollars. On 18 November 2016, you told Mr Ryszard Wilk that, although it would not be possible to pay in US dollars, you might be able to arrange someone to convert the funds. When that did not work out, you indicated to the Wilks that you could convert the money or some of it yourself and, on 19 November 2016, you gave Mr Wilk the US dollar equivalent of NZ$15,000.

[5] Then, on 6 March 2017, you remitted €10,000 to an overseas bank account on the Wilks’ behalf, in two lots of €5,000.

[6] On 13 April 2017, the police executed a search warrant at your home in Whenuapai and in the course of that they found $15,000 cash in your car. This cash was also due to be given to the Wilks.

[7] On 20 June 2017, Mr Wilk was seen handing you a bag which was later discovered to contain $51,800. You were to remit this to Poland, although the police seized the cash before you could do so.

[8] All up, the cash involved in these various transactions which, in one way or another you had in your possession, totalled $481,000.

Personal circumstances

[9] Turning to your personal circumstances, Mr Williams you are a 53-year-old builder, living in Auckland.

[10] You have been employed by a building company for several years now and I have a reference here from a Mr Scott who speaks very highly of you and the value he places on you as a reliable, honest and dedicated employee.

[11] You have a lengthy criminal history, but it is fair to say the offending is at the lower end of the scale and you told the writer of the Provision of Advice to Courts report that you are no longer using illegal substances, plainly a change for the better if it…

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 [2018] NZHC 2731
Case: [2018] NZHC 2731
Decision Date: 18 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Bryan Walter Thomas Williams faced sentencing for a charge of money laundering. Williams had pleaded guilty to the charge, which arose from his role in transferring cash payments from individuals purchasing cocaine from the Wilks to the Wilks themselves. Between November 2016 and July 2017, Williams delivered an estimated $400,000 in cash to the Wilks, along with additional assistance, such as currency conversion and remittance of funds to overseas accounts. The court also noted that during a police search of Williams' home, $15,000 in cash intended for the Wilks was found in his car.

The court considered several legal issues in determining the appropriate sentence for Williams. These issues included the appropriate starting point for the money laundering charge, whether any personal factors should be taken into account, and the discount to be applied for Williams' guilty plea. The court noted that money laundering is a serious offence, particularly when it involves the supply of class A drugs, and that the appropriate starting point for the offence should be determined based on the facts of the case.

The court ultimately determined that an appropriate starting point for Williams' money laundering charge was two years and three months' imprisonment. The court took into account the relatively modest sum of money actually laundered by Williams, as well as the lack of significant financial gain for Williams himself. The court also considered personal factors, such as Williams' employment and family situation, and determined that an increase in the starting point was warranted due to Williams' offending while on parole. The court declined to reduce the starting point for any assistance provided by Williams to the police. Finally, the court applied a 15% discount for Williams' guilty plea and determined that a sentence of home detention was the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances.

The court sentenced Williams to 12 months' home detention for the charge of money laundering, with standard conditions applying. Williams was discharged on all remaining charges, including two additional charges of money laundering and one charge of participating in an organised criminal group.

Orders