Williams v Police - [2024] NZHC 3845

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CRI-2024-476-23

[2024] NZHC 3845

BETWEEN
KOMENE MEI VICTOR WILLIAMS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 13 December 2024

Appearances:

M L Bonniface for Appellant

C J Mitchelmore and S M H McManus for Respondent

Judgment:

16 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 December 2024 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

WILLIAMS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 3845 [16 December 2024]

Introduction

[1] Komene Mei Victor Williams pleaded guilty to indecent assault1 and being in a building unlawfully.2 He sought a discharge without conviction. However, that application was declined and instead, Judge Savage sentenced him to 40 hours community work.3 Mr Williams now appeals this decision.

Facts

[2]The facts were summarised by Judge Savage as follows and are not disputed:

The basic facts are that Mr Williams, when drinking one afternoon in May of this year and got intoxicated before going to town. He met a friend of the victim of his offending, and I note that she was at home because she had been socialising in the afternoon too and had drunk a sufficient amount that she did not feel comfortable to go to town. You followed the friend for a time. You were given a ride by another person and dropped off at the victim’s house. You knocked on the front door but it was locked so you went round and let yourself in a closed but unlocked door and you went in to the victim’s bedroom, where you disrobed down to your underwear and you got into bed with her and attempted to kiss her. Your presence at that house was not invited. It was not welcome and that’s why you were charged.

District Court decision

[3] In considering the gravity of the offending, the Judge said the offending itself was serious. The appellant entered the victim’s house at night, uninvited, took off his clothes, got into her bed and made advances to her. However, the Judge accepted that the appellant had engaged in a positive restorative justice conference and that reduced the seriousness of the offending.

[4] The Judge then turned to the consequences of conviction and determined these were speculative, noting that the appellant’s affidavit stated he may not be able to visit Venezuela to see his mother whom he had not contacted for several years and that he was worried about his job, albeit he had the support of his employer, and his job did not appear to be at risk.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 135; maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
2      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 29(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $2000 fine.
3      Police v Williams [2024] NZDC 27228.

[5] Therefore, on balance, the Judge found that even if he was to accept the submission that the gravity of the offending was reduced…

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 [2024] NZHC 3845
Case: [2024] NZHC 3845
Decision Date: 16 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Komene Mei Victor Williams appeals against the District Court decision declining to grant him a discharge without conviction after he pleaded guilty to indecent assault and being in a building unlawfully. The appellant submits the Court erred in assessing the gravity of the offending as serious and the consequences of conviction as speculative. The Court considered the appeal on the basis that if the gravity of the offending was assessed as low to moderate, the consequences of conviction would still not be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

The appeal hinges on whether the consequences of conviction were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The gravity of the offence was appropriately assessed as serious by the sentencing Judge, considering the nature of the offending, the breach of privacy, and the impact on the victim. The Court considered the appellant did everything reasonably possible to mitigate the gravity of offending, including showing remorse and engaging positively with restorative justice. The Court found the consequences of conviction were speculative and not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. The risks to the appellant’s travel plans were speculative, and there was no indication that the conviction would impact his employment or future employment prospects. Therefore, the appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Orders