Williams v The Queen - [2019] NZCA 199

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA546/2018
[2019] NZCA 199

BETWEEN	NGAKIRI WILLIAMS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	8 May 2019
Court:	Courtney, Lang and Whata JJ
Counsel:	M W Ryan for Appellant M S Williams for Respondent
Judgment:	4 June 2019 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal against sentence is allowed in part.
B The minimum period of imprisonment of 50 per cent is quashed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Whata J)

Ngakiri Williams was sentenced to five years and nine months’ imprisonment on nine charges of burglary, six charges of dishonestly using a document, two charges of receiving stolen property and one representative charge of supplying a Class A controlled drug.[1] Judge Wharepouri imposed a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of 50 per cent and Ms Williams was ordered to pay reparation of $9,000 following her release.[2]
[1]R v Williams [2018] NZDC 21286 at [28] [Sentencing notes].
[2]At [29]–[31].
Ms Williams appeals the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive as a result of the Judge taking too high a starting point, failing to adequately consider totality, and imposing an MPI.

Background

Over a period of nearly six months from March 2012 to August 2012, Ms Williams burgled nine homes. She took credit cards and other possessions of the occupants of those homes. Some of the items taken were treasured, including keepsakes of departed loved ones. She used the credit cards to make various purchases and withdraw cash. Her mode of operation involved targeting elderly persons in affluent suburbs and breaking into their homes, usually while they were outside gardening or engaged in some other household task. She would later call the occupants, pretending to be an employee of the bank of the stolen cards and trick them into divulging their PIN numbers.
Ms Williams was not alone in this offending. Ms Tearani Pawa drove her to four of the victims’ addresses. Ms Mayana Roberts also accompanied Ms Williams and Ms Pawa on one occasion.
Ms Williams absconded to Australia in late March or early April 2013 whilst on electronically-monitored (EM) bail awaiting trial for the charges related to this offending, and for supplying small quantities of methamphetamine.[3] She continued to offend there, receiving a sentence of imprisonment for near-identical offending of two years and eight months in 2015, before being released and held in a detention centre pending deportation.[4] She was deported to New Zealand and remanded in custody from June 2017, until she pleaded guilty to the abovementioned charges on 15 March 2018.

Sentencing

[3]Ms Williams was charged with selling no more than 5 grams of methamphetamine.

[4]We do not have the benefit of the summary of this offending, but this is how it was characterised by the Crown.

The Judge fixed a starting point for the burglaries of six years.[5] He applied an uplift of 18 months for the dishonesty charges and a further 12 months for…

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 Queen

Details

AGLC: Williams v The Queen [2019] NZCA 199
Case: [2019] NZCA 199
Decision Date: 4 June 2019 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ngakiri Williams v The Queen concerns an appeal against the sentence imposed on Ms Williams for multiple charges of burglary, dishonesty, and drug supply. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard the appeal and delivered its judgment on June 4, 2019. Ms Williams, represented by M W Ryan, appealed against her sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive. The legal issues before the court were whether the starting point was too high, whether the uplifts were too high, whether the totality assessment was appropriate, and whether the imposition of the minimum period of imprisonment was necessary. The court found that while the starting point was high, it was not outside the range available. The uplifts were within range, and the totality principle was applied appropriately. However, the imposition of a 50% minimum period of imprisonment was not necessary in light of the significant period of incarceration Ms Williams had already served for subsequent near-identical offending and then as a detainee pending deportation from Australia.

The court's reasoning was that the end sentence of five years and nine months' imprisonment, including an uplift of six months for other convictions, was a significant sentence, giving substantial vent to the purposes of holding the offender accountable for the harm done to the victim and the community, denouncing the conduct in which the offender was involved, deterring the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence, and protecting the community from the offender. Moreover, Ms Williams' incarceration of 32 months for subsequent similar offending in Australia and then for 18 months pending deportation forms part of the context within which to assess whether an MPI is required to meet public expectations of accountability, deterrence, denunciation, and protection of the community. In this regard, without the MPI, the minimum term Ms Williams will be required to serve is 23 months or nearly two years' imprisonment. This would mean Ms Williams will have been imprisoned continuously for 73 months or six years for the two sets of burglary and related offending, and the detention. The protection of the public has been adequately addressed by the combined period of continuous incarceration. The court concluded that the imposition of an MPI was not necessary, having regard to the 50 months of incarceration Ms Williams had already served for subsequent near-identical offending and then as a detainee pending deportation from Australia.

Orders