Legal Research
Cases
Williams v Police

Williams v Police

Case [2025] NZHC 923 15 April 2025

Discretion of Sentencing Judge

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2025-483-7

CRI-2025-483-8 [2025] NZHC 923

BETWEEN
CATHERINE MARY WILLIAMS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 8 April 2025

Appearances:

D M Goodlet for Appellant A N Kearney for Respondent

Judgment:

15 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

Introduction

[1] On 22 November 2024, Catherine Williams was sentenced in the Whanganui District Court to 18 months’ imprisonment by Judge Marinovich, after accepting a sentence indication.1 Ms Williams pleaded guilty to multiple charges of drug possession and failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search.2 She is due to be released on 22 August 2025 and seeks leave to appeal her sentence out of time. The ground of appeal she advances is that she ought to have been given the opportunity to serve her sentence of imprisonment as a sentence of home detention.

1 Police v Williams [2024] NZDC 28465 [Judgment under appeal]. The sentence indication was given on 5 July 2024 and was for 29.5 months’ imprisonment, with the possibility of other discounts being available depending on the information provided at sentencing.
2 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 7(1)(a) and (2) and 12A(2)(b). Possession of a precursor substance (x 2) (maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment), possession of methamphetamine (x 2) (maximum penalty of 6 months’ imprisonment, $1,000 fine), possession of LSD (maximum penalty of 6 months’ imprisonment, $1,000 fine), GBL and another drug (maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment, $500 fine). Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 178 (maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment).

WILLIAMS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 923 [15 April 2025]

The facts

[2] I have taken the summary of facts from Judge Marinovich’s sentence indication.3

[3] On 14 December 2022, Ms Williams was arrested at an address in Whanganui. Police executed a search and located:

(a)487 grams of mainly pseudoephedrine hydrochloride and approximately 993 grams of iodine balls (precursor substances for the manufacture of methamphetamine);

(b)two grams of methamphetamine;

(c)two tabs of LSD;

(d)GBL in excess of 48 millilitres;

(e)240 grams of cannabis, 25 cannabis clones (plants grown from cuttings) approximately 7cm in height and a colourful glass bong;

(f)numerous unknown tablets believed to be prescription drugs;

(g)$1,520 in cash.

[4]Ms Williams declined to provide the unlock codes for her devices.

[5] On 22 November 2023, while Ms Williams was on bail for the above offending, she was found in possession of a point bag with a small amount of methamphetamine. This bag was located by a toilet, with a bag containing glass pipes used for methamphetamine consumption found in the toilet bowl.

3 Police v Williams DC Whanganui CRI-2022-083-1575+1654, 5 July 2024 (Sentencing Indication).

District Court sentencing decision

[6] On the day of sentence, the Judge was troubled by the presence in Court of a man described by the Judge as Ms Williams’ partner (but who Ms Williams’ counsel Ms Goodlet clarified was not her partner). In the discussion prior to sentencing,…

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 [2025] NZHC 923
Case: [2025] NZHC 923
Decision Date: 15 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Catherine Mary Williams appeals her sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, imposed by the Whanganui District Court, following her guilty plea to multiple charges of drug possession and failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search. The appeal is out of time, and leave to appeal is granted. Ms Williams argues that the District Court erred in declining to commute her sentence to home detention. The Court assesses whether there is an error in the sentence imposed on conviction and a different sentence should be imposed. The Court does not start afresh or substitute its opinion for that of the original sentencer, and does not intervene if the end sentence is within range. The appeal is dismissed as the Court considers the decision orthodox and thorough, with the Judge having regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing. The margin of appreciation extended to sentencing judges is significant, and in this case, the Judge did not exceed that margin. The final orders of the Court are that the appeal is dismissed.

Orders