Williams v Police - [2017] NZHC 720

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2017-419-000007 [2017] NZHC 720

BETWEEN
TARAIPINE PAULA WILLIAMS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 12 April 2017 (by AVL)

Appearances:

M James for Appellant
S Gilbert for Respondent

Judgment:

12 April 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Public Defence Service, Hamilton

WILLIAMS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 720 [12 April 2017]

[1] Ms Williams pleaded guilty to one charge of assaulting a child. Judge J D Large sentenced her to three months’ imprisonment.1 The Judge also imposed release conditions.

[2] Ms Williams appeals. Ms James submits the sentence is manifestly excessive and that the appropriate and least restrictive sentence was a combination of community work and supervision or intensive supervision.

Background facts

[3] On 23 September 2016 the victim, who is the appellant’s five year old son, was admitted to Waikato Hospital for routine surgery. The next morning the appellant was with the victim in his room. When she awoke she found the victim, who had been playing with her phone, no longer had it. Ms Williams began swearing and yelling at the child and took hold of him. He broke free but she took hold of him again and slapped him once to the left side of his face. She continued to swear at him. He suffered redness to his face but no lasting injury.

The District Court judgment

[4] The sentencing Judge adopted a starting point of four months’ imprisonment and reduced that to three months to take account of the guilty plea. While the Judge would have been prepared to consider home detention there was no suitable address available. The Judge considered community work and/or supervision was an insufficient response to the offending. He also apparently considered it necessary to send a message to the community that “if you smack a child you go to jail”.

The appeal

[5] Ms James accepts that the starting point of four months’ imprisonment cannot be said to be out of range. No issue is taken with the full discount of 25 per cent for Ms Williams’ guilty plea. The sole issue in the appeal is whether an end sentence of imprisonment was the least restrictive and most appropriate. Ms James referred to
s 16 of the Sentencing Act and the desirability of keeping offenders in the

1 New Zealand Police v Williams [2017] NZDC 3185.

community as far as practicable and consummate with the safety of the community. She noted the other imperatives of s 16. Counsel also referred to the decision of Rawiri in which the Court of Appeal noted in relation to community service:2

[18] … this Court has recognised that a sentence of community service has a punitive aspect. It is intended by Parliament to be and is a very real and effective alternative to imprisonment which should not be regarded by the public as a minor or insignificant reaction. A sentence of community work is designed to achieve the principles of…

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 [2017] NZHC 720
Case: [2017] NZHC 720
Decision Date: 12 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Taraipine Paula Williams appealed against her conviction for assaulting her five-year-old son. Williams was sentenced to three months' imprisonment by Judge J D Large, who also imposed certain release conditions. Williams' appeal focused on the severity of the sentence, arguing that it was excessively punitive and that a more appropriate sentence would have been a combination of community work and supervision or intensive supervision.

The legal issue in the appeal was whether the sentence of imprisonment was the least restrictive and most appropriate, given the statutory hierarchy of sentencing options and the principles of accountability, deterrence, and denunciation. The appellant's counsel cited relevant sections of the Sentencing Act and several authorities from the High Court, arguing that a community-based sentence would have been more appropriate in the circumstances. The respondent, New Zealand Police, argued that the sentence was within the available range of sentences and was justified by Williams' history of non-compliance with community-based sentences and lack of motivation to address the causes of her offending.

The court considered the personal circumstances of the offender, including her history of breaching sentences of supervision, her high risks in alcohol and drug abuse categories, and the fact that she appears to have low motivation to address these issues. The court also noted that there was nothing in the material relating to similar cases to suggest that Williams would not have complied with sentences of supervision or community work. The court concluded that three months' imprisonment was available as a sentence, albeit not on the basis suggested by the Judge of sending a message. The appeal was dismissed, and Williams was to surrender to the police at the police station at Hamilton by midday on 13 April 2017.

Orders