The Queen v Williams - [2009] NZCA 55

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA549/2008
[2009] NZCA 55
THE QUEEN
v
SHADRACH AUGUSTINE LLOYD WILLIAMS
Hearing:24 February 2009

Court:William Young P, Chisholm and Heath JJ
Counsel:M Ball for Appellant

J H M Eaton for Respondent

Judgment:6 March 2009 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal granted.
BAppeal allowed. The sentence of three and a half years imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm quashed and replaced with a sentence of five years imprisonment.

____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Chisholm J)
[1]       Following trial before Judge McKegg and a jury in the District Court at Nelson, Shadrach Williams, the respondent, was found guilty on one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and on a count of threatening to kill. By the time he was sentenced he had also pleaded guilty to unrelated summary offences of behaving in a threatening manner and obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty. Judge McKegg sentenced him to a total of three and a half years imprisonment.
[2]       The Solicitor-General seeks leave to appeal that sentence on the grounds that it is manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle. His primary contention is that in arriving at the sentence the Judge misapplied R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372.
Background
[3]       The victim, Dean Patching, was a tenant of Mr Williams’ ex-partner, Ursula Case. Mr Patching lived in a flat below the main house which was occupied by Ms Case. Mr Williams continued to spend time at the house after separating from Ms Case. By the time of the events giving rise to this appeal Mr Patching had given notice that he intended to vacate the flat and there appears to have been a degree of tension between him and Ms Case.
[4]       On 17 September 2007 Ms Case told Mr Patching that his car had spilt some oil on the driveway. In response Mr Patching suggested, in earshot of Mr Williams, that the oil might have come from Mr Williams’ car. According to Mr Patching’s evidence at trial Mr Williams then “just flew off the handle” and ordered Mr Patching to clean up the oil. Mr Patching’s response was “shut the fuck up and leave me alone”.
[5]       It was Mr Patching’s evidence that Mr Williams then pushed him in the chest, causing him to fall to the ground. After he regained his feet he took off his jersey and held Mr Williams away from him by the scruff of the neck. He believes that at this time Mr Williams was on the bonnet of his car. At that point Ms Case came at him and tried to kick him in the groin. This prompted Mr Patching to also grab Ms Case to stop her kicking him.
[6]       It was then that the altercation escalated in a way that gave rise to the allegations of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and threatening to…

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 The Queen v Williams

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Williams [2009] NZCA 55
Case: [2009] NZCA 55
Decision Date: 6 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal from Shadrach Williams against his sentence for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and threatening to kill. Williams was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment by Judge McKegg, a sentence which the Solicitor-General deemed manifestly inadequate. The appeal centred on the appropriate sentencing band for Williams' crime, as outlined in R v Taueki. The key legal issue was whether the sentencing judge had misapplied the principles set out in Taueki by imposing a sentence at the lower end of band one when the aggravating features of the crime warranted a higher starting point.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had indeed misapplied the principles of Taueki. The Court noted that the attack was serious, involved the use of a weapon, and targeted the victim's head. These factors clearly warranted a higher starting point than the one year sentence imposed. The Court of Appeal emphasised the importance of a principled approach to sentencing, as outlined in Taueki, to ensure consistency and to achieve the objective of greater consistency in sentencing. The Court of Appeal concluded that the appropriate sentence should have been at the top of band one or the bottom of band two, in the range of five to six years imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and replaced the sentence of three and a half years imprisonment with a sentence of five years imprisonment. The Court found that the original sentence was contrary to principle and manifestly inadequate, given the nature of the crime and the aggravating features present. The Court also noted that the sentencing judge had discretion in deciding whether to factor in the appellant's previous record, and in this case, the judge chose not to. As such, the final sentence for the wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm was set at five years imprisonment.

Orders