DPP v Williams - [2014] VSC 304

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

S CR 2013 0189

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

ANGELA MAREE WILLIAMS

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26-28 & 31 March, 1-4, 7-9 April, 23 May 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 June 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Williams
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 304

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Defensive homicide – Accused struck partner multiple times with axe to head and neck – Body buried in backyard – Accused lied as to deceased’s whereabouts for more than 4 years – Long history of family violence by deceased – Good prospects of rehabilitation – No prior convictions – Sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 5 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Kissane	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr L Hartnett Ms K Blair	Bowman & Knox Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Angela Maree Williams, you were charged with the murder of your partner, Douglas Kally, between 10 and 24 July 2008. After a trial, a jury found you not guilty of that charge, but guilty of the alternative offence of defensive homicide.

At the time of his death, you and Mr Kally had been in a relationship for 23 years. You had two children together, Spencer (who was born in 1988) and Simone (who was born in 1992).

There is no dispute that you killed Mr Kally between 10 and 24 July 2008, although the precise date is unknown. You killed Mr Kally in the bedroom of your family home at McDonald Street, Indented Head. Using a pick axe, you struck Mr Kally to the back of the head and neck area 16 times, causing eight penetrating depressed skull fractures, and bleeding and swelling in the brain. The forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy could not say whether any particular blow was fatal, but Mr Kally would have been rendered unconscious and died within a relatively short period of receiving the blows.

There is no dispute that one morning during that period, you drove to the home of your mutual friend, David Grainger, and told him you had had an argument with Mr Kally, who had asked you to drop him off at the train station, after collecting some money which he had hidden, so he could go and live in Kiama, NSW, which was his favourite fishing spot. Later that day, you sent a message to the children at school, telling them to come to Mr Grainger’s house that evening. You and the children stayed at Mr Grainger’s house for the next three or four days.

The prosecution alleged that you never dropped Mr Kally at the train station, and had already killed him after an argument the night before you went to Mr Grainger’s. However, you told police in your record of interview that you did drop Mr Kally at the train station, and only killed him a few…

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 DPP v Williams

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Williams [2014] VSC 304
Case: [2014] VSC 304
Decision Date: 27 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Williams, the High Court of Australia was called to review the sentencing of an individual who had committed a defensive homicide. The accused had struck his partner multiple times with an axe, targeting the head and neck, and subsequently buried the body in the backyard. Despite maintaining a facade of normalcy, the accused concealed the truth about his partner's whereabouts for over four years. The case presented a complex interplay of criminal culpability, self-defence, and the extensive history of family violence perpetrated by the deceased against the accused. The overarching question for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the gravity of the crime and the mitigating factors such as the accused's good prospects for rehabilitation and lack of prior convictions.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the proportionality of the sentence in relation to the crime committed, the applicability of the defence of self-defence, and the broader context of family violence. The court had to balance the necessity of retribution and deterrence against the potential for the accused's rehabilitation. The accused's history of being a victim of violence, coupled with his otherwise clean criminal record, played a significant role in the sentencing deliberations. Additionally, the court needed to consider the community's expectations regarding the punishment of such violent acts, while also acknowledging the accused's potential for future law-abiding behaviour.

In its decision, the court meticulously weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors. The severity of the crime was underscored by the brutality and premeditation involved. However, the court recognised the accused's lack of prior criminal history and his prospects for rehabilitation as significant mitigating factors. The court concluded that while the crime warranted a substantial sentence, the principles of justice and rehabilitation necessitated a sentence that provided a reasonable balance between punishment and the potential for the accused to reintegrate into society. Ultimately, the court sentenced the accused to eight years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years, reflecting a nuanced approach that considered both the gravity of the offence and the accused's potential for reform.

The final orders of the court affirmed the sentence of eight years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. This decision recognised the necessity of imposing a significant penalty for the violent crime committed, while also taking into account the accused's background and potential for rehabilitation. The sentence was designed to achieve a balance between punishment, deterrence, and the possibility of the accused becoming a law-abiding citizen in the future. The court's ruling underscored the importance of considering the broader context of family violence and the individual circumstances of the accused in the sentencing process.

Orders