R v Williams - [2012] NZHC 506

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2011-019-1945 [2012] NZHC 506

THE QUEEN

v

JAMES LEONARD WILLIAMS

Hearing: 22 March 2012

Appearances: R Guthrie for Crown
R Boot for accused

Judgment: 22 March 2012

SENTENCING REMARKS OF ALLAN J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor Hamilton
R Boot, Hamilton

R V WILLIAMS HC HAM CRI 2011-019-1945 [22 March 2012]

[1] Mr Williams, you appear for sentence this morning, having been found guilty by a jury on two counts of blackmail, one of threatening to kill and one of rape. The blackmail charges carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, the charge of threatening to kill carries a maximum of seven years imprisonment, and that of rape,
20 years imprisonment.

Factual background

[2] For a period of some months during 2010, you had been in an intimate personal relationship with your victim. The relationship ended in September 2010. For about a month or so after that there was no contact between you, but then there was a resumption, arising principally out of your joint interest in looking after the dogs that had been part of your combined household.

[3] Initially the resumed relationship was platonic, and that is the way the victim wanted it to stay. But after a few weeks you commenced to demand sex from her. The demands became incessant. They were often in the form of text messages.

[4] From about 18 December 2010 onwards, the demands for sexual intercourse with the victim escalated to the point at which they were accompanied by an explicit threat that if she did not submit to you sexually, you would disclose to her family and employer, certain intimate sexual images of her that had been recorded during the course of your relationship.

[5] At your trial, the Crown produced evidence of a great many text messages, more than 1000 in all, which demonstrated in plain and blunt language, your sense of entitlement to further sexual activity with the victim. You embarked upon a deliberate, calculated and repetitive course of conduct aimed at manipulating and controlling her.

[6] She made it very clear in her text message responses that she had no interest in a further sexual relationship. But in the face of your threats to disclose intimate photographs to others, she ultimately relented. In doing so, she told you in the

clearest possible terms that she was acting under duress, and that you had simply overborne her will by your demands.

[7] On Christmas Day 2010, the victim went to your house in the early evening. There, sexual intercourse took place. It appears she was with you for several hours and that a great deal of sexual activity occurred.

[8] The victim hoped that, by submitting on that occasion, your demands would come to an end and that you would destroy the intimate images of her, and hand over to her, various contact details of her family and employer, so you would no longer have the means to send explicit…

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 [2012] NZHC 506
Case: [2012] NZHC 506
Decision Date: 22 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams involved the sentencing of James Leonard Williams, who was found guilty of blackmail, threatening to kill, and rape. The blackmail charges involved persistent demands for sexual activity and threats to disclose intimate images, while the rape charge stemmed from a sexual encounter on Christmas Day 2010, where the victim consented under duress due to the threats. The threatening to kill charge involved escalating threats made via text messages. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the guidelines set out in R v AM for sentencing in cases of sexual violation by rape, as well as other relevant sentencing principles.

The court considered the aggravating factors present in the case, including the level of premeditation and planning, the victim's vulnerability, and the emotional harm suffered by the victim. The court found that the case fell at the top end of band 1 or the lower end of band 2 of the AM sentencing bands, warranting a starting point of eight years imprisonment for the rape charge. The court also imposed an uplift of 15 months imprisonment for the blackmail charges and three months for the threatening to kill charge. The court further considered aggravating factors such as the offender's previous criminal record and the fact that the offences were committed while on bail, but ultimately decided not to add any additional uplift for these factors. The final sentence was nine years and six months imprisonment to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court were as follows: Mr. Williams was convicted on all four charges, with a sentence of nine years and six months imprisonment for the rape charge, 15 months imprisonment for each blackmail charge, and three months imprisonment for the threatening to kill charge, to be served concurrently. The court also made an order cancelling the offender's current sentence of community work. In addition, the court issued a three strikes warning to the offender, informing him of the consequences of another serious violent conviction under the three strikes law.

Orders