Willis v Police - [2015] NZHC 2818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-319 [2015] NZHC 2818

BETWEEN
ADRIAN MICHAEL WILLIS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 9 November 2015

Appearances:

T J Beach for Appellant
R Thompson for Respondent

Judgment:

12 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Whata on
12 November 2015 at a.m./p.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors:
Presland & Co., Auckland
Meredith Connell, Crown Solicitors, Auckland
Copy to:
T J Beach, Auckland

WILLIS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 2818 [12 November 2015]

[1] Mr Willis “viciously beat his victim about her face and head with his fists”.1

He was subject to a protection order at the time. He was also suffering from “a major depressive disorder requiring continuing assistance”.2 He was charged with injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, common assault and two charges of breaching a protection order. Judge G A Fraser indicated that:3

In the event that I have a favourable probation report in relation to home detention, recognising the circumstances, recognising the fact that you have had a significant period in custody, I would be prepared to deal with it by way of a home detention outcome.

[2] In sentencing Mr Willis to two years’ imprisonment the Judge explained that all of the available information “adds up to a picture of continuing risk which in terms of the public interest and the victim’s interests, is not one which makes a sentence of home detention a suitable sentence for the Court to follow”.4

[3] With the benefit of argument, the key issues on appeal are:

(a) Did the Judge err in the assessment of the risk posed by Mr Willis?

(b)Did the Judge err in deciding to sentence Mr Willis to imprisonment having regard to his rehabilitative needs?

[4] I have resolved that, with the benefit of information not available to the Judge at sentencing, the resolution of the two key issues supports a sentence of home detention. Mr Willis’ treatment is crucial to the long term management of the risk factors underlying his offending. Home detention will best achieve this.

Background

The offending

[5] The facts of Mr Willis’ offending are not in dispute. On 7 May 2015, he was outside an address in Mt Albert, Auckland. At the time the first victim, who was his

1 Notes of Judge G A Fraser on sentence indication, 15 September 2015 at [4].
2 At [14].
3 At [20].
4 NZ Police v Willis [2015] NZDC 20340 at [11].

former partner, was driving her motor vehicle away from the address. The first victim had a protection order against Mr Willis. He approached the vehicle and hopped into the front passenger’s seat. An argument then occurred and escalated. Mr Willis had become enraged as a result of the victim telling him that she was going to report his texting to her as a breach of a protection order.

[6] A struggle ensued, 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 Willis v Police

Details

AGLC: Willis v Police [2015] NZHC 2818
Case: [2015] NZHC 2818
Decision Date: 12 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Willis appealed against his sentence of two years’ imprisonment for injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, common assault and two charges of breaching a protection order. The appeal was heard by Whata J in the High Court of New Zealand at Auckland. The grounds of appeal were that the Judge erred in the assessment of the risk posed by Willis and erred in deciding to sentence Willis to imprisonment having regard to his rehabilitative needs.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence of imprisonment was substituted with a sentence of home detention for a period of ten months. Whata J found that the Judge did not err in his assessment of risk based on the information available to him. However, the proper and appropriate balance lies with a sentence of home detention together with special conditions that will better provide for management of Willis’ medium to long term risk to the public. This also best serves his rehabilitative needs. Whata J reached this conclusion with the benefit of information not available to the sentencing Judge.

Orders