Legal Research
Cases
Williams v The King

Williams v The King

Case [2023] NZCA 637 11 December 2023

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA515/2022
[2023] NZCA 637

BETWEEN	ARMANI WILLIAMS Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	2 November 2023
Court:	French, Thomas and Fitzgerald JJ
Counsel:	E Huda and S C Kim for Appellant K A White for Respondent
Judgment:	11 December 2023 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Introduction

In December 2021, Mr Williams caused the death of a young man by punching him so that he fell to the ground and hit his head. Mr Williams pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced by Nation J to three years’ imprisonment.[1]
[1]R v Williams [2022] NZHC 2206 [Sentencing judgment] at [56].
Mr Williams now appeals his sentence on the grounds it was manifestly excessive. His counsel, Mr Huda, says the Judge’s starting point was too high and insufficient credit was given for mitigating personal factors.

Background

The Crown summary of facts reads as follows:
At about 2.00am on Saturday 4 December 2021, the victim was in the carpark at Countdown on Moorhouse Ave, Christchurch along with a group of friends. There were in the vicinity of 30–50 cars gathered in the carpark.
The victim had travelled to that location in a vehicle with four associates.
The victim exited the vehicle to go to the toilet. He walked to some clothing bins near the corner of Madras Street and Moorhouse Ave to urinate.
At that time a vehicle has been passing east on Moorhouse Ave. The defendant was sitting on the windowsill of the right rear passenger seat, his torso out of the window and legs inside the car, so that he was able to look across the roof of the car towards where the victim was, and the victim was able to see the defendant.
The victim remarked to the defendant words to the effect “why are you looking at my dick?”
The vehicle did a U-turn, travelling a short distance west along Moorhouse Ave, before entering the Countdown car park. At this stage the victim had walked back to the vehicle he had travelled in.
The defendant got out of his vehicle, visibly agitated, and immediately approached the victim. The defendant said words to the victim, variously described by witnesses as:
-“what did you say cunt?”
-“stop talking shit”
-“I don’t know who this motherfucker is”
-“I don’t know who this cunt is”
The defendant forcefully punched the victim to the side of the mouth, causing the victim to fall backwards, the back of his head striking the ground.
The defendant kicked the victim in the leg and yelled angrily at him before returning to his vehicle and driving out of the carpark. Some witnesses refer to the kick occurring before the punch and others refer to it occurring after the punch, when the victim was on the ground.
The defendant returned, approximately ten minutes later, again sitting up out…

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 [2023] NZCA 637
Case: [2023] NZCA 637
Decision Date: 11 December 2023 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Armani Williams appealed against his sentence for manslaughter, arguing that the starting point was too high and that insufficient credit was given for mitigating personal factors. Williams had caused the death of a young man by punching him, resulting in fatal injuries. Williams pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. The Crown accepted that in cases of single punch manslaughter, a distinction is made between those where the offender intended to inflict serious injury and those where there was no such intention. In cases where there is an intention to cause serious injury, the Taueki guidelines are applied, with a potential uplift to account for the death resulting from the offence. The Crown argued that the starting point in this case was appropriate as it fell within the second category of Taueki, which applies to offences with two or three aggravating factors. Williams' counsel argued that the starting point was excessive and that the Judge had incorrectly found that the punch was intended to cause serious harm. The Court found that the Judge was entitled to infer an intention to cause serious harm and that the starting point of five years was within the appropriate range. The Court also found that the discounts for personal mitigating factors were justifiable given the seriousness of the offence and the aggravating features present. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal against sentence.

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Christchurch for Respondent.

Orders