Williams v Police
[2021] NZHC 3194
•26 November 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE
CRI-2021-463-134
[2021] NZHC 3194
BETWEEN NARISSA ANNIE-MAY WILLIAMS
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: 25 November 2021 Appearances:
N Pukepuke for Appellant P F Lee for Respondent
Judgment:
26 November 2021
JUDGMENT OF LANG J
[on appeal against sentence]
This judgment was delivered by me on 26 November 2021 at 2 pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
WILLIAMS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 3194 [26 November 2021]
[1] Ms Williams pleaded guilty to numerous charges in the District Court. They comprised dishonesty offences, driving offences and failing to answer District Court bail.
[2] On 30 September 2021 Judge T R Ingram sentenced Ms Williams to 21 months imprisonment.1 At that time Ms Williams did not have an address at which she could serve a sentence of home detention. She appeals against sentence on the basis that the Judge ought to have granted her leave to apply to convert the sentence of imprisonment into a sentence of home detention if she could obtain a suitable address.
The offending
[3] The dishonesty offending comprised seven theft charges laid after Ms Williams drove away from service stations without paying for petrol she had pumped into her vehicle. In addition, she pleaded guilty to two charges of stealing items from retail stores.
[4] Ms Williams also pleaded guilty to charges of driving at a dangerous speed on 25 August and driving in a dangerous manner on 17 September 2020. On the latter occasion she was driving whilst her licence was suspended and she also failed to stop for police who were pursuing her. On 18 August 2021 she again drove whilst suspended.
The sentence
[5] The Judge took a global starting point of 16 months imprisonment on the dishonesty charges and applied a discount of four months to reflect guilty pleas. This resulted in an end sentence of 12 months imprisonment.
[6] On the driving charges the Judge took a global starting point of 12 months imprisonment and reduced this by three months to reflect guilty pleas. This produced an end sentence of nine months imprisonment. The Judge then imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment on the dishonesty offences together with a cumulative sentence of nine months imprisonment on the driving charges. He imposed a
1 New Zealand Police v Williams [2021] NZDC 19479.
concurrent sentence of two months imprisonment on the charge of breaching bail conditions.
[7] The Judge declined to grant leave to convert the end sentence to one of home detention for the following reasons:2
[9] I accept from the terms of the Probation report and your counsel’s submissions that you are a young woman who has had her difficulties in life. That has caused considerable stress, and I understand that. And were you here on one, or two, or maybe even four or five charges I might be prepared to give that aspect of matters rather more prominence than I am presently prepared to give it. And the reason for that is because nothing that has been done in relation to you over the last 12 months, where the courts have bent over backwards to give you bail, to try and help you deal with the cases that I have got to deal with, none of that has made any difference. You have just continued to please yourself and offend, left, right and centre.
[10] As far as your driving is concerned putting other people at risk, left, right and centre, without a thought for the consequences of what is going to come.
[11] I appreciate that home detention might have some attractions, but the reality is, at the moment anyway, there appears to be nowhere that is suitable for you. But in any event, I do not consider, having regard to what you have done, the time over which you have done it, and the fact that you have continued to offend almost right up to today, that home detention is suitable for somebody who does not comply with their bail, who does not comply with the disqualifications, and both of those are court orders or directions. And you have demonstrated unequivocally that you are not capable of complying with them.
[12] In the end, I have come to the clear and straightforward view that you simply are not suitable for a sentence of home detention, having regard to the way you behave, the kind of offences that you commit, and your demonstrate inability time and time again to comply with the terms of your bail, and to not offend whilst you are on bail.
[13] In my view, if I gave you a sentence of home detention of the kind and length which would be required here, I would simply be setting you up to fail, because I do not accept that you are someone who has got what it takes to do that particular sentence.
2 New Zealand Police v Williams, above n 1.
The appeal
[8] Mr Pukepuke points out that Ms Williams does not have an extensive criminal history other than the present offences. She sustained two convictions for driving whilst suspended in 2015 and 2017, and six convictions for theft between 2019 and 2020. Each of these related to the theft of property having a value of less than $500. She has never received a sentence of community detention, home detention or imprisonment.
[9] Mr Pukepuke submits that a sentence of home detention on the present charges would adequately meet the sentencing purposes of accountability, denunciation and deterrence. It would also assist Ms Williams’ rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. He therefore contends the Judge erred in failing to grant Ms Williams leave to apply for home detention should she be able to find a suitable address.
Decision
[10] I accept that Ms Williams does not have an extensive criminal history. Relevantly, however, she was sentenced to supervision for nine months on 20 June 2019 on three charges of theft. She then sustained another conviction for theft just before this sentence was due to expire. This led to her being sentenced to a further term of nine months supervision on 12 June 2020. She began offending again virtually immediately and continued to do so despite being on bail and subject to the sentence of supervision.
[11] The limited nature of Ms Williams’s criminal history would ordinarily suggest she was a likely candidate for a sentence of community detention or home detention. However, her unsatisfactory response to the two sentences of supervision obviously affected the Judge’s assessment regarding the likelihood she would comply with an electronically monitored sentence. He clearly did not consider she had the ability to comply with such a sentence. I consider the Judge was entitled to reach that conclusion.
[12] During the hearing Mr Pukepuke advised me that Ms Williams is endeavouring to find a rehabilitative facility that will assist her to reintegrate into the community by
providing her with treatment for her mental health issues and her low level addiction to methamphetamine. He submits this represents the best means by which to mitigate the obvious risk of further offending in the future.
[13] The pre-sentence report makes it clear that Ms Williams’ mental health issues are likely to have played a significant role in the present offending. The impact of her involvement with drugs is less clear. However, if Ms Williams can find a facility that can provide her with rehabilitative assistance I consider it will be in the interests of society that she avail herself of it. Any such facility will obviously need to be able provide a satisfactory level of oversight and supervision to mitigate against the risk Ms Williams may abscond and commit further offences. I therefore consider she should be permitted to apply to convert the balance of her sentence of imprisonment to a sentence of home detention to be served at a rehabilitative facility if she can find one that meets her needs.
Result
[14] The appeal is allowed to the extent that Ms Williams is granted leave to apply to convert the balance of her sentence of imprisonment to a sentence of home detention at an appropriate residential rehabilitative facility.
Lang J
0
0
0