Christopher John Valentine WILLIAMS v and the Queen - [2013] VSCA 120

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0301

CHRISTOPHER JOHN VALENTINE WILLIAMS	Applicant
v
Respondent
THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL ACJ and BUCHANAN JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 May 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 May 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSCA 120
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Williams (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Mullaly, 16 November 2012)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Indecent assault – Digital penetration – Child Victim – Victim in the care of offender – Total effective sentence three years and ten months’ imprisonment with minimum term of two years and six months – Cumulation appropriate – Strong rehabilitation – Not manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M D Stanton	Lethbridges Pty Ltd
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL ACJ:

I will invite Buchanan JA to deliver the first judgment.

BUCHANAN JA:

After a trial in the County Court, the applicant was found guilty on five charges of indecent assault (charges 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6) and one charge of gross indecency (charge 2).

After a plea, the applicant was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of two years on charge 1, for a term of six months on count 2, for a term of nine months on charge 3, for a term of five months on charge 4, for a term of 14 days on charge 5 and for a term of two years on charge 6. Two months of the sentence imposed on charge 2, five months of the sentence imposed on charge 3, one month of the sentence imposed on charge 4 and 14 months of the sentence imposed on charge 6 were accumulated upon each other and upon the sentence imposed on charge 1, producing a total effective sentence of three years and 10 months. A non-parole period of two years and six months’ imprisonment was fixed.

The complainant and her siblings were placed in the care of the Victorian Social Welfare Department. In May 1978, the applicant and his then wife became ‘the cottage parents’ of the children. The offences arose from two incidents, one in December 1981 and the other in January 1982, when the complainant was aged 12 years and the applicant was aged 32 years.

The first incident occurred when the complainant returned home from a holiday. The applicant followed her to her bedroom and started to touch her. He put his fingers inside her vagina (charge 1) and said, ‘if you could fit two fingers inside her vagina then she would not be a virgin anymore’. During the course of this incident the applicant took the victim’s hand and put it on his penis over the top of his clothing (charge 2).

The second incident occurred when the complainant and her brother returned from a joy flight. The applicant entered the complainant’s bedroom…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Christopher John Valentine WILLIAMS v and the Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] VSCA 120
Decision Date: 7 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Christopher John Valentine Williams versus the Queen is an appeal against sentence, with the respondent being the Crown. The appellant was convicted of indecently assaulting a child, involving digital penetration, while the child was in his care. The court of appeal was tasked with reviewing the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The primary legal issue was whether the total effective sentence of three years and ten months' imprisonment, with a minimum term of two years and six months, was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence should not be cumulative and that it did not take into account his strong rehabilitation efforts.

The court considered the severity of the offence and the appellant's custodial history. The court acknowledged that the offence was of high moral culpability and that the appellant had a significant level of responsibility over the victim. However, the court also recognised the appellant's efforts towards rehabilitation and the possibility of his reintegration into society. The court determined that the sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the appellant's history. The court also held that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in imposing a cumulative sentence.

The court ultimately concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the appellant had not demonstrated a point of principle warranting leave to appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's custodial history, and his efforts towards rehabilitation. The court did not consider the sentence to be inappropriate or disproportionate to the crime committed. The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders