Legal Research
Cases
Williams v R

Williams v R

Case [2023] NZCA 156 5 May 2023

Rehabilitative Potential

Remorse

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA440/2022
[2023] NZCA 156

BETWEEN	JUDI-ANNE RAUPUTIPUTI WILLIAMS Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	20 March 2023
Court:	Clifford, Dunningham and Cull JJ
Counsel:	C G Farquhar and M S C Rollason for Appellant L J Sullivan for Respondent
Judgment:	5 May 2023 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal against sentence is allowed. We quash the sentence of four years and eight months’ imprisonment on the charges of supplying methamphetamine, of offering to supply methamphetamine and of participating in an organised criminal group.
BOn each of those offences, a concurrent sentence of three years and 11 months’ imprisonment is imposed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dunningham J)

Introduction

On 18 July 2022, Judi-Anne Rauputiputi Williams was sentenced by van Bohemen J to four years and eight months’ imprisonment[1] on representative charges of supplying methamphetamine, of offering to supply methamphetamine,[2] and a charge of participating in an organised criminal group.[3]
[1]R v Williams [2022] NZHC 1712.
[2]Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(c); and Crimes Act 1961, s 66.
[3]Crimes Act 1961, s 98A.
Ms Williams appeals her sentence on the following grounds:
(a)the Judge erred by setting an excessive starting point; and
(b)the Judge erred by applying insufficient discounts to recognise the substantive matters raised by the s 27 report, and her potential for rehabilitation and remorse.

Background

Ms Williams was convicted along with six co-offenders as a result of a police investigation into the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine within the Waikato region. Much of the evidence was gathered through the interception of communications following the issue of surveillance device warrants.
The individuals identified through the investigation included:
(a)Mr Michael Ormsby, who was a senior member of the Mongrel Mob Waikato chapter and the main supplier of money to the organised criminal group in order to facilitate the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine.
(b)Mr Stephen Griffiths, who was the syndicate’s methamphetamine manufacturer. He worked beneath Mr Ormsby, Mr Heller and Mr Smith. He directed Mr Smith and Mr Heller to obtain precursor materials and then manufacture methamphetamine.
(c)Mr James Smith, who was a member of the Mongrel Mob world chapter and a close associate of Mr Heller and Mr Griffiths. He assisted Mr Griffiths in the task of manufacturing methamphetamine and would obtain his portion of the finished product to supply.
(d)Mr Richard Heller, who was a senior member of the Mongrel Mob rogue chapter, and sat below Mr Ormsby. He was the partner of Ms Williams and facilitated the wholesale supply of methamphetamine from Mr Griffiths to Ms Williams and others.
(e)Ms Williams, who sat below Mr Heller and facilitated the day-to-day supply of methamphetamine to a regular customer base, as well as running a number of “drug houses” in the community, including one operated by Mr King. Ms Williams used other family members beneath her to assist in the day-to-day operation, including her daughter-in-law,…

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 R

Details

AGLC: Williams v R [2023] NZCA 156
Case: [2023] NZCA 156
Decision Date: 5 May 2023 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Judi-Anne Rauputiputi Williams appeals against her sentence imposed by the High Court, which found her guilty of supplying and offering to supply methamphetamine, and participating in an organised criminal group. The appeal concerns the sentencing of four years and eight months’ imprisonment imposed by van Bohemen J. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Clifford, Dunningham, and Cull JJ, allows the appeal and reduces the sentence to three years and 11 months’ imprisonment. Williams was part of a methamphetamine syndicate in the Waikato region, and played a significant role in the supply of the drug. The appeal focused on two issues: the appropriateness of the starting point and the sufficiency of the discount for personal mitigating factors.

In addressing the starting point, the court noted that the Judge placed Williams in band three of the sentencing bands set out by the Court of Appeal in Zhang v R, given the quantum of methamphetamine involved in her offending. The court found that the Judge correctly placed Williams in the middle of band three, which resulted in a starting point of nine years and two months. This was consistent with other cases involving similar or more serious offending, and the court rejected the argument that the starting point was excessive.

Regarding the discount for personal mitigating factors, the court found that the 17 per cent discount applied by the Judge was insufficient. The court noted that the s 27 report outlined Williams' appalling childhood and ongoing violent relationships, which contributed to her offending. The court also highlighted her remorse, commitment to change, and insight into her offending. In comparison with the discounts afforded to co-offenders, the court found that the 17 per cent discount for Williams was inconsistent and warranted an additional eight per cent discount, resulting in a total discount of 25 per cent. This led to a final sentence of three years and 11 months’ imprisonment.

Orders