R v Williamson-Atkinson - [2024] NZHC 611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2022-220-64

[2024] NZHC 611

THE KING

v

JUSTICE WILLIAMSON-ATKINSON

Hearing: 20 March 2024

Appearances:

C E Clarke for the Crown

M J Phelps and N M Graham for Mr Williamson-Atkinson

Date:

20 March 2024

SENTENCING OF COOKE J

[1] Justice Williamson-Atkinson I now need to sentence you for the murder of Adrian Humphries following the guilty verdict reached by the jury at your trial last year.

[2]In explaining the sentence that will be imposed on you I will do three things:

(a)First I will explain the facts of your offending.

(b)Secondly, I will describe the approach that is required for the sentence of murder, and in particular why the sentence of life imprisonment will be imposed on you.

R v WILLIAMSON-ATKINSON [2024] NZHC 611 [20 March 2024]

(c)Thirdly, I will explain what the law says about what is called the minimum period of imprisonment — that is the minimum period of time you must stay in prison before you are considered for parole and what that is in your case.

(d)And finally I will address whether your personal circumstances, and particularly your youth means that a lower minimum period should be imposed, and what that should be.

The offending

[3]I begin by describing your offending.

[4] On 6 May 2022 you were present at the Bushlands Campground on Tāngarākau Road, Whangamōmona. This is a remote campground approximately 24 kilometres from Whangamōmona Village and 1.5 hour’s drive from Stratford. You were present as part of a youth justice course known as the START programme. You were 15 years old at the time and the programme is directed towards young offenders. There were two other rangatahi and three course mentors present on the START course at the campground. You had been engaged in outdoor pursuit exercises for a number of days before coming to the Bushlands Campground, which had more facilities than the other places that you had been camping before that time.

[5] The campground has a number of sleeping cabins, a toilet/shower block, a separate kitchen/dining unit, and a firepit area encircling a large grass area where others could camp. The three course mentors and you and the two other boys pitched your tents in an area approximately 40 metres from this main campground area. You each had your own pup tents, and the three course mentors stayed in a six person tent.

[6] There were few others at the campground that day. Apart from the owner/occupiers of the campground there was one other small group — an off duty police officer and his family who occupied two of the cabins, and Mr Adrian Humphries, the victim. Mr Humphries had come from his home in Rotorua to stay for the week using a camping trailer which he towed with his vehicle. This folded out into a large tent of approximately 7 x 4 metres involving two main areas, a living area

and…

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 Williamson-Atkinson

Details

AGLC: R v Williamson-Atkinson [2024] NZHC 611
Case: [2024] NZHC 611
Decision Date: 20 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williamson-Atkinson involved the sentencing of Justice Williamson-Atkinson for the murder of Adrian Humphries. Williamson-Atkinson, aged 15 at the time, had stabbed Humphries multiple times during an attempted burglary, leading to Humphries' death. The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence for murder, considering the aggravating factors and Williamson-Atkinson's personal circumstances, including his youth and diagnosed conditions such as foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

The court first outlined the legal framework for sentencing murder, which mandates life imprisonment unless it would be manifestly unjust. Given the aggravating factors, including the use of a weapon and unlawful entry into a dwelling, a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of at least 17 years was required unless it was manifestly unjust. The court then assessed whether imposing a 17-year MPI would be unjust, considering Williamson-Atkinson's youth and diagnosed conditions, which significantly impacted his moral culpability and impulse control. The court found that while the aggravating factors warranted a higher MPI, the unique personal circumstances of the offender, as highlighted in recent Court of Appeal decisions, warranted a recalibration of the general approach for sentencing young offenders.

Considering these factors, the court concluded that imposing a 17-year MPI would be manifestly unjust and instead imposed an MPI of 11 years, making Williamson-Atkinson eligible for parole in his late 20s. The court also sentenced him to one year for burglary, to be served concurrently with the murder sentence.

In summary, Justice Williamson-Atkinson was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Adrian Humphries, with a minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years. The court balanced the severity of the crime with the offender's youth and personal circumstances, aiming to ensure accountability while considering the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders