Williams v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 1960

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2021-412-000002

[2021] NZHC 1960

BETWEEN
HARIROA JAYLEEN KHAN WILLIAMS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 28 June 2021

Appearances:

D J More for the Appellant

C J Bernhardt for the Respondent

Judgment:

30 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] On 23 December 2020 Ms Hariroa Tonihi/Williams was sentenced by Judge Turner to two years’ and four months’ imprisonment for wounding with intent to injure1 and injuring by an unlawful act.2 She appeals that sentence.

[2]It appears her surname is legally Tonihi so I will refer to her as Ms Tonihi.

Facts

[3] The victim here resides on the second floor of a two story multi bedroom boarding house in Dunedin. There is a shared kitchen/dining room on the ground floor.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 188(2); maximum penalty 7 years’ imprisonment.
2 Crimes Act, s 190; maximum penalty 3 years’ imprisonment.

WILLIAMS v R [2021] NZHC 1960 [30 July 2021]

During January 2020, Ms Tonihi’s boyfriend had been sleeping on a mattress in the kitchen area. Ms Tonihi often visited the address.

[4] In the evening of 27 January 2020, Ms Tonihi went to the address looking for her boyfriend. They had been drinking alcohol together that day.

[5] The victim and the victim’s boyfriend were in her room upstairs using her cell phone. The victim was recovering from a broken patella and was wearing a leg brace. She walked with a crutch. She was also recovering from a hernia operation.

[6] Ms Tonihi knocked on the victim’s door and the victim opened it. Ms Tonihi asked the victim if she had seen Ms Tonihi’s boyfriend. She remained in the doorway of the room. The victim told Ms Tonihi to leave the room. Then she punched Ms Tonihi in the body and face. Ms Tonihi did not retaliate.

[7] Ms Tonihi’s boyfriend then came up the stairs and tried to pull the victim off Ms Tonihi. The victim’s partner then intervened. Somehow all ended up downstairs. The victim’s car was parked outside. Ms Tonihi’s boyfriend went outside and began striking the victim’s car, swearing and abusing the victim and her partner.

[8] Ms Tonihi went into the kitchen and picked up a paring knife. She walked down the hallway towards the victim and the victim’s partner. Ms Tonihi approached the victim, swore at her, and began swinging punches. Due to her injuries, the victim was unable to move backwards efficiently. Ms Tonihi then stabbed the victim twice in the left shoulder area and once in the stomach.

[9] The victim called out to her partner, who witnessed these stabs. He grabbed Ms Tonihi by her hair, pulling her down and away from the victim. He yelled at Ms Tonihi to release the knife, but she refused. He then grabbed the knife by the blade and tried to yank it out of Ms Tonihi’s grip. He tried four times before he was…

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 [2021] NZHC 1960
Case: [2021] NZHC 1960
Decision Date: 30 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Williams v The Queen, Ms Hariroa Tonihi/Williams appealed against her two-year-and-four-month sentence for wounding with intent to injure and injuring by an unlawful act. The court was required to determine whether the District Court judge erred in imposing the sentence and whether a different sentence should be imposed. The legal issues revolved around the starting point of the sentence, the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the appropriateness of the discount granted for the appellant's guilty pleas.

The court held that the District Court judge was correct in placing the offending at the low end of band three, justifying a starting point of between three years and three years six months' imprisonment with a six-month uplift for the second charge. The court found that the violence was serious but not extreme, and the presence of aggravating factors, such as the use of a knife, the vulnerability of the victim, and the element of home invasion, warranted the starting point adopted by the District Court. The court also rejected the appellant's claim of self-defense and accepted that there was no error in the discount of 20% for the guilty pleas. The cultural report provided on appeal did not materially add to the information that was before the sentencing judge, and the court found that the total credit for personal matters was appropriately set at 35%. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence upheld.

Orders