Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Braedon WILLIAMS v R [2013] NSWCCA 15 Hearing dates: 26 September 2012 Decision date: 08 February 2013 Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1]
Hidden J at [2]
Adamson J at [31]Decision: Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal against sentence - aggravated break, enter and steal - co-offenders - parity/proportionality - quasi-custody - whether reduction of sentence required in anticipation of residential rehabilitation Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999Cases Cited: - Renshaw v R [2012] CCA 91
- R v Campbell [1999] NSWCCA 76
- Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39, 244 CLR 120
- Ng v R [2011] NSWCCA 227, 214 A Crim R 191Category: Principal judgment Parties: Braedon Kane Williams (applicant)
Regina (respondent Crown)Representation: Counsel:
A Francis (applicant)
P Ingram SC (respondent Crown)
Solicitors:
Nyman Gibson Stewart (applicant)
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (respondent Crown)
File Number(s): 2011/47638 Decision under appeal
- Jurisdiction:
- 9101
- Date of Decision:
- 2011-09-02 00:00:00
- Before:
- Blackmore DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2011/47638
Judgment
McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Hidden J.
HIDDEN J: The applicant, Braedon Kane Williams, pleaded guilty in the District Court to aggravated break, enter and steal, an offence under s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 5 years. He asked that a further offence of the same kind be taken into account on a Form 1. Blackmore DCJ, taking the Form 1 matter into account, sentenced him to imprisonment for 4 years, comprising a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months, commencing on 12 February 2011, and a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.
The grounds of the application are such that it is not necessary to examine the facts of the offences or the applicant's subjective case in detail. The two offences were committed in the early hours of 12 February 2011 in the Albury area. Each offence was committed in the company of two co-offenders, Nathan Sullivan and Eric Dwayne Williams. Eric Williams is not related to the applicant. In the principal offence a Caltex Service Station was broken into and cigarettes of a value in excess of $2,600 were stolen. Roller doors to the premises were damaged in the process. The Form 1 offence was a break-in at an IGA Supermarket, where alcohol of a value of a little over $770 was stolen.
The applicant was 22 years old at the time of the offences, and 23 at the time he was sentenced. He is now 24. He has a substantial criminal record. A pre-sentence report before Judge Blackmore disclosed a disturbed upbringing. He had limited education and a minimal employment history. He developed a major problem of substance abuse, particularly…
Continue reading Braedon WILLIAMS v R
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Braedon Williams v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 15
- Case
- [2013] NSWCCA 15
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court noted that the principles of parity and proportionality are crucial in sentencing, particularly in cases where the offender has the potential for rehabilitation. The Court considered the severity of the offence and the need for general deterrence, but also balanced these against the opportunity for rehabilitation. The Court emphasised that a sentence should not be imposed in anticipation of early release, but rather the sentence should be appropriate for the offence and the offender. In this case, the Court found that the sentence was not excessive or disproportionate, and that it appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The Court also noted that the opportunity for rehabilitation was a factor to be considered in sentencing, but it did not necessarily require a reduction in sentence.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court found that the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the offence, and that it appropriately reflected the need for general deterrence and the opportunity for rehabilitation. The Court also noted that the sentence was not excessive or disproportionate, and that it appropriately balanced the interests of the community and the offender. The Court did not make any orders regarding the sentence, as the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: CLELLAN CJ
Full text does not contain this section.