Williams v The Queen - [2018] NZHC 2945

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2018-416-20 [2018] NZHC 2945

BETWEEN
JO MARIE WILLIAMS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 6 November 2018

Appearances:

N Wright for Appellant
C Stuart for Respondent

Judgment:

13 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

Introduction

[1] Ms Williams pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of methamphetamine for sale and possession of cannabis for sale. She was sentenced to three years and
11 months’ imprisonment in the Gisborne District Court on 17 August 2018.1

[2] Ms Williams appeals her sentence on the grounds it was manifestly excessive. She says the Judge erred by failing to:

(a) adopt an appropriate starting point;

(b) adjust for the totality of sentence;

(c) take into account pre-sentence detention; and

1 Williams v R [2018] NZDC 17900.

(d) allow a discount for hardship.

[3] The Crown oppose the appeal. It says the end sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The offending

[4] Lucky Campbell was the target of a police operation in 2017 focusing on the distribution of methamphetamine in Gisborne. On 1 December 2017 a warrant was authorised to allow surveillance. Between 27 December 2017 and 9 January 2018
Ms Williams bought 87 g of methamphetamine from Mr Campbell to supply others. She was serving a sentence of home detention at the time. As she was unable to leave her home, she sent her sister (Sandra Williams) to make the payments and collect the drugs on six occasions over that period.

[5] On 10 January 2018, Ms Williams told Mr Campbell that a search warrant was being executed and she was getting rid of her phone. Ms Williams was out of her drug stocks by 11 January 2018.

[6] Ms Williams was dealing methamphetamine to fund her own habit, but it is clear she was in the business of selling it. In total Ms Williams purchased 87 g of methamphetamine. She sold 71 g and used the balance.

The sentencing

[7] On 17 August 2018, the Judge sentenced Ms Williams and her sister, Sandra

Williams.2

Sandra Williams (Ms Williams sister)

[8] The Judge noted that it was Sandra Williams’ first appearance before the Court at the age of 37 years. The Judge began by noting that it she had acted out of misguided loyalty to Ms Williams. According to the pre-sentence (PAC) report, Sandra Williams was assessed as being at a high risk of reoffending and a medium risk of harm due to

2 Williams v R, above n 1.

her substance abuse and her addiction to methamphetamine. She was unremorseful, did not believe she had done anything wrong, and had no motivation to change. Imprisonment was recommended by the probation officer.

[9] However, at the hearing she handed up a handwritten letter in which stated she had remained methamphetamine free for a considerable period and had put her life back onto a positive track. She said she wanted access to programmes and counselling to assist her…

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 [2018] NZHC 2945
Case: [2018] NZHC 2945
Decision Date: 13 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Jo Marie Williams appealed against her sentence for possession of methamphetamine for sale and possession of cannabis for sale. Williams argued that her three years and 11 months' imprisonment sentence was manifestly excessive due to errors in the starting point, totality adjustment, pre-sentence detention consideration, and lack of a discount for hardship. The Crown opposed the appeal, arguing that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court examined whether the starting point was appropriate, whether the uplifts applied were justified, whether pre-sentence detention should have been considered, and whether a discount for hardship was warranted. The court found that the starting point was within the appropriate range, the uplifts were justified, pre-sentence detention was not applicable, and a discount for hardship was not warranted as Williams chose to deal methamphetamine with her children in the home. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence was not found to be manifestly excessive.

Final orders:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The overall sentence is not manifestly excessive.

Orders