Legal Research
Cases
R v Wilson

R v Wilson

Case [2023] NZHC 2640 21 September 2023

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Vicarious Liability

Res Judicata

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-044-3602

[2023] NZHC 2640

THE KING

v

BOSTON LIAM WILSON

Hearing: 21 September 2023

Counsel:

A McClintock for the Crown

L Smith and P Hamlin for the Defendant

Sentencing:

21 September 2023

Reissued:

10 October 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF GORDON J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland L Smith, Barrister, Auckland P Hamlin, Barrister, Auckland

R v WILSON [2023] NZHC 2640 [21 September 2023]

[1] Mr Wilson you are for sentence today having been found guilty by a jury on a charge that you murdered your 10 month old nephew, Chance Aipolani-Nielson (Chance).

[2] First I acknowledge the presence of Chance’s mother Azure and other members of the family, both in Court and perhaps present remotely by electronic link to the Court.

[3] When a person is convicted of murder they must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust.1

[4] Mrs Smith, on your behalf, submits that the Court should not impose a sentence of life imprisonment. Rather, she submits the Court should impose a sentence of 14 and a half years’ imprisonment.

[5] The Crown case is that a sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate. It would not be manifestly unjust.

[6] That is the first main issue the Court will need to determine today, namely whether I should impose a sentence of life imprisonment or whether the sentence should be for a fixed period and if so, its length.

[7] In the alternative, if the Court does not accept Mrs Smith’s submission on the first issue and the Court considers a sentence of life imprisonment would not be manifestly unjust, Mrs Smith submits the minimum non-parole period should be 14 years.

[8] That is the second main issue for the Court today. In the event I decide you should be sentenced to life imprisonment, I will need to set the minimum period of imprisonment you must serve before you are eligible to be considered for parole.

1 Sentencing Act 2002, s 102(1).

Factual background

[9]I start with the facts of your offending.

[10] Chance and his mother Azure were part of your household. They had lived with you since Chance was born. Also in the same household there was your partner Darien, who is Azure’s half-sister, and the four daughters you and Darien have together aged between six weeks and four years at the time you killed Chance.

[11] Darien and Azure’s mother, known as Deedee, also lived with you until around late November or early December 2021 when she went overseas to care for a sick relative.

[12] Prior to Chance’s death, he had been left alone in your care on only a few occasions, for short periods. Azure was working at the time and it was mainly Deedee who looked after Chance during the day while Azure was at work. Once Deedee went…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [2023] NZHC 2640
Case: [2023] NZHC 2640
Decision Date: 21 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Boston Liam Wilson was convicted of the murder of his 10-month-old nephew, Chance Aipolani-Nielson. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over by Gordon J, was tasked with sentencing Wilson. The key issues for the court were whether a sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate, and if not, what the appropriate minimum non-parole period should be. The court found that a sentence of life imprisonment was warranted given the severity of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the breach of trust. However, considering Wilson's age and other mitigating factors, the court determined that a 17-year minimum non-parole period would be manifestly unjust, settling on a 15-year minimum term.

The court examined the facts of the case, where Wilson inflicted severe head injuries on Chance, leading to his death. Wilson's defence that he shook Chance to revive him after he stopped breathing was rejected by the jury and the court, given the overwhelming medical evidence of the severity of the injuries. The court also considered the victim impact statements, which highlighted the profound impact of Chance's death on his family. In accordance with the Sentencing Act 2002, the court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing, including holding Wilson accountable, denouncing the conduct, and deterring similar offences. The court identified several aggravating features, such as the breach of trust and the particular vulnerability of the victim, and noted the absence of mitigating features.

The court then assessed whether a sentence of life imprisonment would be manifestly unjust under Section 102 of the Sentencing Act. The court acknowledged Wilson's young age, lack of prior criminal history, and supportive family background but concluded that these factors did not outweigh the gravity of the offence. The court also considered Section 104 of the Sentencing Act, which requires a minimum non-parole period of 17 years or more for the most serious kinds of murder, unless it would be manifestly unjust to do so. The court ultimately decided that imposing a 17-year minimum non-parole period would be manifestly unjust, given Wilson's age and other personal circumstances, and set the minimum non-parole period at 15 years.

In sentencing Wilson to life imprisonment with a 15-year minimum non-parole period, the court balanced the need for accountability, deterrence, and protection of the community with the potential for Wilson's rehabilitation. The court emphasized that this decision did not diminish the impact of Chance's death on his family but reflected the need to consider all relevant factors in sentencing.

Orders