R v Williams - [2015] NZHC 2680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-019-001186 [2015] NZHC 2680

THE QUEEN

v

MANA WILLIAMS

Hearing: 30 October 2015

Appearances:

R Douch for Crown
S Green for Defendant

Judgment:

30 October 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
S Green, Auckland

R v WILLIAMS [2015] NZHC 2680 [30 October 2015]

Offences

[1] You can remain seated. I will ask you to stand when I get to the end.

[2] Mr Williams, you pleaded guilty to one charge of threatening to kill and one of possessing an offensive weapon. These offences carry a maximum penalty of seven years and three years’ imprisonment, respectively.

[3] You were found not guilty at trial of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Your co-defendant, Mr Te Tomo was found guilty of the murder of Michael Thompson.

Facts

[4] At about 5 pm on 20 February 2015, a confrontation took place on Norrie Street here in Hamilton. You were at the address with Mr Te Tomo. Mr Thompson and his friend Mr Apanui drove to Norrie Street after finishing work for the day. You were 17 at the time. Mr Thompson was in his late 20’s. Mr Te Tomo is affiliated to the Mongrel Mob gang. You have some connection to that gang. Mr Thompson was affiliated with the Black Power gang.

[5] Mr Thompson directed an inflammatory comment towards you. You responded by smashing the front passenger side window of Mr Apanui’s vehicle. The two men in the vehicle then got out. Mr Apanui threw a bottle at your head. It seems that both sides were throwing a recycling bin and bricks at each other.

[6] Mr Thompson and Mr Apanui then chased you back into the house. You came back shortly afterwards with Mr Te Tomo carrying ornamental swords. You threw a sword or swords in the direction of Mr Apanui and Mr Thompson. While in possession of a sword, you threatened to kill them. The fight then escalated, culminating in Mr Te Tomo shooting Mr Thompson in the face.

Personal circumstances

[7] You have no prior convictions. You were raised in a gang environment and many of your family are gang members. You admit your affiliation with the Mighty Dog Soldiers. You told the pre-sentence report writer that you were neither a patched member nor a prospect of the Mongrel Mob. You said you have no desire to become a prospect or a patched member and claim to have disassociated yourself from the gang.

[8] Regarding the offending, you appeared to the report writer to be genuinely remorseful for your part and you expressed your sympathy for Mr Thompson and his family. You stated you wished you had considered other options. However, based on the seriousness of the offending, your gang associations and propensity for violence, you were assessed by the report writer as posing a medium risk of reoffending and a medium risk of harm to others.

[9] You are currently in a positive…

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 [2015] NZHC 2680
Case: [2015] NZHC 2680
Decision Date: 30 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williams, the defendant was convicted of threatening to kill and possessing an offensive weapon. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these offences, which carry maximum penalties of seven years and three years' imprisonment, respectively. The defendant, Williams, was found not guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm but was found guilty of the murder of Michael Thompson, along with his co-defendant, Te Tomo.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve included establishing an appropriate starting point for sentencing, assessing the personal mitigating and aggravating factors, and determining the discount for a guilty plea. The court considered the nature of the offence, the defendant's age, his remorse, and the fact that he had no prior convictions. Additionally, the court took into account the defendant's gang affiliations and the potential for escalation in the situation.

The court decided to adopt a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment, acknowledging that the threats made by the defendant were not premeditated and that there was no willingness on his part to carry out the threat to kill. The court further considered the defendant's age, remorse, and first-time offender status as mitigating factors, resulting in a total discount of 25%. The court also gave a small discount for the defendant's late guilty plea, bringing the sentence down to nine months. Both counsel agreed that home detention was appropriate, and the court imposed a sentence of 4.5 months' home detention, to be served concurrently.

In conclusion, the court sentenced Williams to 4.5 months' home detention for the charges of threatening to kill and possessing an offensive weapon. The court emphasised the importance of the defendant learning from this case and not returning to court.

Orders