Williams v Police - [2010] NZCA 304

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA183/2010
[2010] NZCA 304
BETWEENANTHONY HADDON WILLIAMS

Appellant

ANDTHE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:8 July 2010

Court:Ellen France, Stevens and Wild JJ
Counsel:E J Forster for the Appellant

M Inwood for the Respondent

Judgment:19 July 2010 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.
BThe sentence of nine and a half years imprisonment imposed by the District Court is quashed, and a sentence of eight years imprisonment substituted.
CThe fines, which were remitted without jurisdiction, are reinstated.

REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Wild J)
Introduction
[1]        On the ground that it is manifestly excessive, Mr Williams appeals against a sentence of nine and a half years imprisonment imposed on him by Judge Mackintosh in the Napier District Court on 23 March this year.[1]
[1]      R v Williams DC Napier CRI-2009-041-684.
[2]        For the appellant, Mr Forster contends the Judge’s sentencing starting point of 12 years imprisonment was too high, the uplift of two years she applied because of the appellant’s previous convictions too large, and thus the derived ultimate sentence manifestly excessive.
[3]        The Judge sentenced the appellant after he pleaded guilty to two charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, one charge of kidnapping, one charge of burglary, two charges of threatening to kill, one charge of theft from a dwelling house, one charge of theft of a vehicle and five charges of assault with a weapon.
The facts
[4]        The charges arose out of what the sentencing Judge described as “a most appalling situation”. The main victim of the offending was a 58 year old woman who, for a number of years, had been living with the appellant’s grandfather. Following the admission to hospital of the grandfather early this year, the appellant and his two co-accused went to the grandfather’s home and accused the victim of stealing from the grandfather. They forced her to leave the home and go with them in her car to the house of her former husband, who had agreed to accommodate her. One of the co-accused then stole the victim’s car and cell phone.
[5]        A day or so later, on 7 January this year, the appellant and his co-accused went to the victim’s new address. They again accused her of stealing money, searched through her belongings and stole a number of them including her wallet and jewellery. They came back later in the day. After again accusing the victim of theft, the appellant dragged her outside by her hair where they proceeded to punch and kick her for between five and ten minutes until she lost consciousness. When the appellant came back into the house his hands were covered in blood. There was a lot of blood outside, below the steps to the house. The appellant and his co-accused could obviously see that the victim needed hospital treatment. They threatened her that she would be “history” unless she told people at the hospital that she had been beaten…

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 Williams v Police

Details

AGLC: Williams v Police [2010] NZCA 304
Case: [2010] NZCA 304
Decision Date: 19 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williams v Police is a case in which the appellant, Anthony Haddon Williams, sought to appeal the sentence imposed on him by the District Court. The District Court sentenced Williams to nine and a half years imprisonment for a series of violent offences, including wounding with intent, kidnapping, burglary, threatening to kill, theft, and assault with a weapon. Williams argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly because of the starting point of 12 years imprisonment and the two-year uplift for his previous convictions. The Court of Appeal considered the arguments and found that while the offending was appalling, it was not at the top end of Taueki band 3. The Court concluded that the starting point of 12 years was the highest available to the sentencing Judge and that no uplift was warranted for the appellant's previous convictions. The Court also found that the Judge had remitted the appellant's fines without jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal quashed the sentence of nine and a half years imprisonment and substituted a sentence of eight years imprisonment for the charges of wounding with intent and kidnapping, with the other concurrent sentences remaining. The Court reinstated the fines that had been remitted without jurisdiction. The appellant is now sentenced to an effective term of eight years imprisonment.

Orders