Williamson v R - [2015] NZCA 621

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA398/2014
[2015] NZCA 621

BETWEEN	DOUGLAS JOHN WILLIAMSON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

CA399/2014
BETWEEN	JOHN BLACKWOOD WILLIAMSON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	11 November 2015
Court:	Kós, Fogarty and Mallon JJ
Counsel:	T W Fournier and E Huda for Appellants M H Cooke for Respondent
Judgment:	18 December 2015 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeals against conviction are dismissed.
BThe applications to adduce fresh evidence are declined.
CThe appeals against sentence are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Fogarty J)

Introduction

The appellants, Messrs Williamson, faced trial in the District Court at Christchurch on indictment for:
(a)One count alleging ill-treatment of a horse under s 29(a) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. (To which they pleaded guilty after hearing the Crown’s case.)
(b)Six counts alleging wilful ill-treatment of horses under s 28(1)(c) of the Animal Welfare Act. (To which they, likewise, pleaded guilty.)
(c)Eleven counts alleging failure to ensure the physical, health and behavioural needs of horses are met under ss 10 and 12(a) of the Animal Welfare Act. (To which they pleaded guilty to five of the counts, being discharged on the balance.)
Messrs Williamson made applications to vacate their pleas of guilty. These were declined by Judge Saunders.[1] Subsequently, they were each sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment by Judge Farish.
[1]R v Williamson DC Christchurch CRI-2012-009-10644, 17 June 2014.
The appellants appeal against their convictions. They contend Judge Saunders erred in refusing to allow them to vacate their guilty pleas. They contend that the Judge failed to properly assess the relevant issues when considering whether there had been a miscarriage of justice.
They also appeal against the sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge Farish.[2] They contend that she incorrectly assessed the seriousness of the offending. That she was wrong to adopt a starting point of imprisonment. And that if imprisonment was the correct type of sentence, 16 months was too high. Finally, if the end point was imprisonment, the Judge misdirected herself when considering and rejecting home detention.

Narrative

[2]R v Williamson DC Christchurch CRI-2012-009-10644, 16 July 2014.

On 2 October 2009, two SPCA inspectors went to the property at Quaifes Road, occupied by the appellants. They found quite a few horses in various states of condition, in paddocks with very minimal feed.
They returned four days later, on 6 October. The two same inspectors, but this time accompanied by a veterinarian, Dr Amira Mikhial.
Following that visit, one of the SPCA inspectors met with Mr John Williamson the next day and gave him a Notice of Instruction under s 130 of the Animal Welfare Act requiring the horses to have good quality hay until there was better grazing and also to be wormed with a commercial broad spectrum wormer, to be deloused and, for some horses with long cracked hoofs, for them to be tended to. These visits were followed up. There was a further visit in early…

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 Williamson v R

Details

AGLC: Williamson v The Queen [2015] NZCA 621
Case: [2015] NZCA 621
Decision Date: 18 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals against conviction by Douglas John Williamson and John Blackwood Williamson (the appellants) were dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The appellants were found guilty of multiple charges of ill-treatment of horses under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and failure to ensure the physical, health and behavioural needs of horses were met. The appellants argued that their trial counsel had induced them to plead guilty under a mistaken belief that no tenable defence could be advanced. The Court of Appeal found that the appellants' counsel acted professionally and there was no miscarriage of justice. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that the Judge had turned her mind to the relevant considerations and there was no basis to intervene on appeal.

Orders