Legal Research
Cases
Williams v The King

Williams v The King

Case [2024] NZCA 57 13 March 2024

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA357/2023
[2024] NZCA 57

BETWEEN	NASHYN WILLIAMS Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	13 February 2024
Court:	Collins, Woolford and Mander JJ
Counsel:	E P Priest for Appellant M J Mortimer-Wang and C P Paterson for Respondent
Judgment:	13 March 2024 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application to adduce fresh evidence is granted.

BThe appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woolford J)

Introduction

On 26 February 2021, Nashyn Williams drove his co-offender, Mr Kaos Williams, to a park in Northcote, Auckland. A crowd of young people had gathered there. There were on‑going tensions between various young persons and a fight between two of the young people had been arranged. On arrival at the park, Mr Williams slowed his vehicle. Mr Kaos Williams, who was seated in the front passenger seat, then proceeded to fire a shot from a sawn-off double-barrelled shotgun in the direction of the crowd. Mr Williams then drove away with his co-offender and disposed of the vehicle. The shot fired by Mr Kaos Williams resulted in the victim being shot in the face, causing him to lose his left eye, substantial vision in his right eye and sustain serious facial injuries.
Initially, Mr Williams (then aged 18) and his co-offender (then aged 16), were jointly charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.[1] The Crown later filed an amended charge notice for both offenders. Mr Kaos Williams was charged with wounding with reckless disregard,[2] while Mr Williams was charged with being an accessory after the fact to the wounding.[3]
[1]Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1). Maximum sentence: 14 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Crimes Act, s 188(2). Maximum sentence: seven years’ imprisonment.
[3]Crimes Act, ss 71 and 312. Maximum penalty: three years, six months’ imprisonment.
Mr Williams then pleaded guilty to the lesser charge. On sentencing, Judge B A Gibson declined his application for discharge without conviction.[4] Instead, the Judge convicted Mr Williams and sentenced him to six months’ supervision and three months’ community detention.[5] Mr Williams now appeals the Judge’s refusal to grant a discharge without conviction and, should this ground of appeal fail, against the sentence given.

Discharge without conviction

[4]R v Williams [2023] NZDC 11576 [Sentencing notes] at [22].

[5]At [22].

Section 106(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 (the Act) provides that a Court may discharge an offender without conviction following a plea or finding of guilt. In order to grant a discharge without conviction, the Judge must be satisfied that “the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence”.[6]
[6]Sentencing Act 2002, s 107.
This proportionality assessment is to be made in accordance with the three-step approach set out by this Court in Z (CA447/2012) v R.[7] A Court must assess:[8]
(a)the gravity of the offending, taking into account all aggravating and mitigating factors of the…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Williams v The King [2024] NZCA 57
Case: [2024] NZCA 57
Decision Date: 13 March 2024 at 10.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nashyn Williams, the appellant, appeals against his conviction and sentence following his involvement in an incident in which a sawn-off double-barrelled shotgun was fired at a crowd of young people in Northcote, Auckland. Mr Williams was charged as an accessory after the fact to the wounding of one of the young people. The appeal is against the District Court Judge's refusal to grant a discharge without conviction and, should this appeal fail, against the sentence given. The central legal issues were whether the Judge erred in his assessment of the gravity of the offending and the consequences of conviction, and whether there were any errors in the sentencing process.

The Court found that the Judge correctly applied the three-step approach mandated in Z (CA447/2012) v R when considering the application for a discharge without conviction. The Judge appropriately assessed the gravity of the offending by considering the seriousness of the primary offence, the appellant’s actions in assisting his co-offender to evade apprehension, and personal mitigating factors. The Court found that the Judge did not err in taking into account the appellant’s knowledge that his co-offender had a firearm and his subsequent actions in assisting his co-offender to evade apprehension. The Judge also correctly assessed the consequences of conviction, focusing on the appellant’s employment as a scaffolder and the risk of losing his job upon conviction. The Court found that the Judge did not err in concluding that the consequences of a conviction were not out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.

The Court also found that the Judge did not apply the two-step sentencing methodology set out in R v Taueki to reach the appellant’s end sentence. However, the Court concluded that the error in the sentencing process did not lead to a manifestly excessive sentence. The sentence imposed was within the range for similar offending and took into account the appellant’s personal mitigating factors.

The application to adduce fresh evidence was granted, and the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

Orders