Williamson v The King - [2025] NZCA 334

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA31/2025
[2025] NZCA 334

BETWEEN	ANTHONY DAVID WILLIAMSON Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	23 June 2025
Court:	Woolford, Dunningham and Walker JJ
Counsel:	J D Munro and N B Gibson for Appellant J M Pridgeon and B So for Respondent
Judgment:	17 July 2025 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dunningham J)

In September 2024, Anthony Williamson was found guilty of the manslaughter of Liang Miaoyuan (Ms Liang), a 70‑year‑old Chinese woman. On 3 December 2024, Powell J sentenced Mr Williamson to four years and six months’ imprisonment.[1] Mr Williamson now appeals that sentence.
[1]R v Williamson [2024] NZHC 3670 [sentencing notes].
Counsel for Mr Williamson, Mr Munro, says the starting point adopted by the Judge was too high because:
(a)the Judge failed to consider Ms Liang’s conduct in stepping onto Mr Williamson’s vehicle as a factor mitigating his culpability;
(b)the Judge took into account Ms Liang’s advanced age as an aggravating feature of the offending, when Mr Williamson thought she was in her fifties;
(c)the Judge failed to consider Mr Williamson’s explanation for leaving the scene without helping Ms Liang; and
(d)when compared with other cases, the starting point was too high.
The Crown disputes that the Judge erred in any of the ways identified and submits the appeal should be dismissed.

The offending

The events which led to the charge occurred around 12.30 pm on Saturday 10 September 2022. Mr Williamson, although forbidden from driving, was involved in a minor road accident when his Ford Ranger utility vehicle bumped into the back of the car driven by Mr Xie, and whose wife, Ms Liang, was in the front passenger seat.
What happened next was summarised by Powell J at sentencing as follows:
[5]       There is no dispute that both you and Mr Xie got out of your vehicles to see what had happened, and you subsequently reversed your ute slightly to allow an inspection of any damage and both of you took photos of the vehicles. There is no dispute that there were communication difficulties between you and Mr Xie. Mr Xie attempted to ring his son to assist but before he could connect, he said you pointed to the side road, being Solana Court, and he thought you were wanting him to drive to the side road to get the issue resolved. In [your first] interview with Police you confirmed that this was indeed what you had indicated.
[6]       However, when you started driving you did not enter Solana Court. Instead, you continued to drive along Cascades Road so as to turn right into Botany Road at the next set of traffic lights. Thinking you were trying to get away Mr Xie and Ms Liang followed you in their car and came to a halt close to your vehicle but in the next lane on the right.
[7]       While the…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Williamson v The King [2025] NZCA 334
Case: [2025] NZCA 334
Decision Date: 17 July 2025 at 2 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Anthony Williamson appeals against the sentence imposed by Powell J for his conviction of manslaughter. The sentencing judge had found that Mr Williamson, despite being forbidden from driving at the time, had caused the death of Liang Miaoyuan by driving away with her holding onto the running board of his vehicle, accelerating to a speed of 43 kilometres per hour, and then opening his door while moving, causing her to fall off and suffer fatal injuries. The appeal against sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The court considered the appellant's arguments that the starting point of four years and six months' imprisonment was too high because the sentencing judge failed to consider Ms Liang's conduct in stepping onto the vehicle as a mitigating factor, took into account her advanced age as an aggravating feature, failed to consider his explanation for leaving the scene without helping Ms Liang, and that when compared with other cases, the starting point was too high. The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in any of the ways identified and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the victim's conduct did not materially reduce the culpability of the defendant, and the judge did not err in taking her age and size into account as increasing her vulnerability. The court also found that the judge appropriately considered the appellant's failure to stop and assist, or to promptly summon emergency services, as aggravating features of the offending. Finally, the court found that the starting point was not out of step with comparator cases as the appellant's case was not so materially different in overall culpability as to warrant a lesser starting point. The appeal is dismissed.

Orders