R v Williams - [2017] NZHC 427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-044-4605 [2017] NZHC 427

THE QUEEN

v

STEPHEN ROGER WILLIAMS

Hearing: 14 March 2017

Appearances:

S McColgan and SP Farnell for Crown
Defendant, self-represented

Sentence:

14 March 2017

SENTENCING NOTES OF TOOGOOD J

R v Williams [2017] NZHC 427 [14 March 2017]

[1] Stephen Roger Williams, you appear for sentence having pleaded guilty to attempted murder.1 The maximum penalty for that is 14 years’ imprisonment.

[2] When you last appeared you were warned that the Crown would ask the Court to sentence you to the indefinite sentence of preventive detention. I have obtained psychiatric and psychological reports to assist me to decide whether such a sentence is appropriate. I begin my consideration of that issue by setting out the background to your offending.

The offending

[3] You are serving a sentence of life imprisonment at Auckland Prison, for murder. Your victim in the present offending, Mr Nikki Roper, was a fellow inmate.

[4] On 11 December 2016, Mr Roper came to your cell to get some tattoos on his back. You did the tattooing while he sat in a chair with his back to you. At some point, you put down the tattoo gun and picked up a piece of a long florescent light tube that you had broken and hidden in your cell. You stabbed it into Mr Roper’s neck so that shards of glass became lodged inside the wound.

[5] You then put Mr Roper into a ‘choker hold’, pressuring the carotid artery in his neck with your arm. He struggled against you, just making it outside the cell, where the CCTV camera captured the ongoing assault.

[6] Mr Roper lost consciousness but you continued to attack him by stomping on his head. You then picked up a broom and struck Mr Roper across the head so hard that the broom broke. At this point, you stabbed Mr Roper in the back of the neck with the sharp end of the broken broom handle.

[7] Mr Roper remained in an unresponsive state while you continued to attack him. It was only the arrival of Corrections officers which ended your assault. He was transported to Auckland Hospital in a serious condition, where he received
emergency surgery for his injures which were severe and life threatening. He

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 173.

received two lacerations across the back of his head and neck. One was 30 cm long, and required 34 staples. The other required stitches. You also fractured Mr Roper’s left-eye socket, and he received cuts and bruising to both of his hands, and a cut on his left shoulder.

[8] The intervention of Corrections officers, Mr Roper's resilience and the expert work of medical specialists saved your victim’s life. That was a remarkable outcome. You were annoyed when you were told Mr Roper had survived. When you spoke candidly to the Police about your attack, you said you did not like Mr Roper because you believed he had…

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 427
Case: [2017] NZHC 427
Decision Date: 14 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the defendant Stephen Roger Williams was sentenced for the crime of attempted murder. The defendant, who was self-represented, had pleaded guilty to the charge. The court had to decide whether to impose a finite sentence of imprisonment or an indefinite sentence of preventive detention. The defendant had a history of violent offending, including a prior conviction for murder, for which he was serving a life sentence. The court had to consider whether the defendant represented a significant risk of reoffending violently if released from prison.

The court found that the attempted murder of the victim, Mr Nikki Roper, was a brutal and premeditated attack, and the defendant showed no remorse for his actions. The court considered various aggravating and mitigating factors, including the defendant's history of violent offending, his lack of remorse, and his early guilty plea. The court also considered reports from psychiatric and psychological experts, who assessed the defendant as presenting a high risk of reoffending. The court concluded that the defendant's risk of reoffending was so high that a finite sentence would not provide adequate protection for the community.

The court imposed a sentence of preventive detention, with a minimum term of 10 years' imprisonment. The defendant will only be released when the court is satisfied that he no longer represents a threat to community safety. This decision ensures that the defendant will remain incarcerated for the rest of his life, providing the necessary protection for the community against his potential for future violent offending.

Orders