R v Williams - [2017] NZHC 776

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2016-029-351 [2017] NZHC 776

THE QUEEN

v

HARLEY WILLY WILLIAMS

Hearing: 26 April 2017

Appearances:

NJ Dore for Crown
NS Leader for Defendant

Sentence:

26 April 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
N S Leader, Auckland

R v WILLIAMS [2017] NZHC 776 [26 April 2017]

[1] Harley Willy Williams: you appear for sentence on two charges of aggravated robbery,1 having pleaded guilty after you received a sentence indication on 16 March 2017.

Three strikes warning

[2] Given that aggravated robbery is a qualifying offence under s 86A of the Sentencing Act 2002, you are subject to what is known as the “three strikes regime”. I must warn you therefore, that if you are convicted of further serious violent offences, other than murder, you will be required to serve the full sentence of imprisonment you receive without parole or early release. If you are convicted of murder after this warning, you will receive a life sentence of imprisonment without parole unless the Court decides that that would be manifestly unjust.

[3] You will be given that warning in more detail in a written notice which

Mr Leader will explain to you.

Sentencing approach

[4] In approaching the determination of the sentence to be imposed on you I set out first the circumstances of your offending and the effect on the victims. Then I will address the part you played in the offending and set an initial sentence starting point which is appropriate to your culpability or blameworthiness. I will then make such adjustments to the sentence as are appropriate to reflect relevant personal factors before imposing the sentence I determine you should receive.

[5] As you know from the sentence indications that I gave, I do not propose to treat Mr Nathan in the same way as I intend to treat you. That is because:

(a) you were involved in the offending in very different ways;

(b) you are older than Mr Nathan; and

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 235(c); maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.

(c) unlike you, Mr Nathan has no relevant criminal history and he has shown insight into his role in this offending and he has expressed genuine remorse.

Background facts

[6] At around 4.00 am on Friday, 25 March 2016, you arrived with companions at a public carpark situated on the foreshore at Ahipara. The three of you, who were proved to be involved in the offending, got out of your vehicle and approached a parked campervan in which the male and female occupants were spending the night. They were overseas tourists.

[7] All three of you began to rock the van violently almost to the point of tipping it over. The victims, who were alarmed, opened the sliding door of the van to see what was happening and the 29 year old male victim yelled out, asking what was going on. He was immediately punched in the face with a closed fist, a…

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 [2017] NZHC 776
Case: [2017] NZHC 776
Decision Date: 26 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harley Willy Williams was sentenced on two charges of aggravated robbery. Williams pleaded guilty after receiving a sentence indication. The court had to consider the appropriate sentence for the offending and the mitigating and aggravating factors in determining the sentence. The court noted the nature and circumstances of the offending, which involved a violent attack on two tourists in a campervan. The court also considered the defendant's criminal history, which included multiple prior convictions, and his lack of remorse. The court decided on an initial starting point of four years and three months' imprisonment, uplifted by three months due to the defendant's criminal history, resulting in a total of four and a half years' imprisonment. After applying a discount for the defendant's guilty plea, the court imposed a sentence of three years and seven months' imprisonment to be served concurrently. The court also granted the Crown's application to withdraw two unrelated charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Orders