DPP v Williams & Godfrey - [2020] VSC 483

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0337; S CR 2018 0339

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
-v-
CRAIG LESILIE WILLIAMS	First Accused
-and-
JOHN WILLIAM GODFREY	Second Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 & 10 June 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 August 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Williams & Godfrey
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 483

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act — Reckless conduct endangering serious injury — Fear of deceased— Gun fired into vehicle occupied by deceased — Intention with which gun fired — Guilty plea — Plea at earliest forensic opportunity — Utilitarian value of the plea — Relevance of COVID-19 — Just punishment, deterrence and denunciation — First Accused sentenced to total effective sentence for 10 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of seven years — Second Accused sentenced to total effective sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of four years —Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 5, 6AAA, 11.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson QC with Mr P O’Halloran	Office of Public Prosecutions
For Craig Williams	Mr M McGrath with Mr R Nathwani	Stary Norton Halphen
For John Godfrey	Mr J Saunders	Theo Magazis & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Craig Leslie Williams and John William Godfrey, on 2 March 2020, you both pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and you, Craig Williams, have also pleaded guilty to reckless conduct endangering serious injury.

These offences occurred on 3 September 2017, when Joshua Dipietro (the ‘deceased’) was fatally shot by you, Craig Williams, as he sat in a motor vehicle outside [redacted], Rosebud.

The charge of manslaughter is put by the Crown on the basis that you, Craig Williams, caused the death of the deceased by the unlawful and dangerous act of shooting into the vehicle that contained the deceased. The second charge against you is put on the basis of a shot, or shots, you fired at the motor vehicle while it drove away.

The charge of manslaughter is put against you, John Godfrey, on the basis that you were complicit in the manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act committed by Craig Williams.

Originally, you had both been committed to stand trial for the murder of the deceased and other related offences. Upon the prosecution accepting your respective offers to plead to the charges of manslaughter and reckless conduct endangering serious injury, the charge of murder has not proceeded.

On 1 June 2020, I heard the prosecution’s factual summary in relation to those offences and submissions on behalf of each of you and the senior Crown prosecutor as to the sentence that should be imposed. I also received two victim impact statements from members of the family of the deceased man. On 10 June 2020, at my invitation, I heard further brief submissions on the issue of the intent with which you, Craig Williams, fired the fatal shot.

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 DPP v Williams & Godfrey

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Williams and Godfrey [2020] VSC 483
Case: [2020] VSC 483
Decision Date: 7 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against sentence by two individuals, Williams and Godfrey, who had been found guilty of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal. The central dispute related to the appropriateness of the sentences imposed on Williams and Godfrey for their involvement in the death of the deceased, which occurred when a gun was fired into the vehicle they were occupying. The appeal focused on whether the primary judge had adequately considered the relevant sentencing principles and the mitigating factors, including the timing of the guilty plea and the impact of COVID-19.

The legal issues the court was required to decide involved the assessment of the appropriate sentence for the manslaughter conviction, particularly considering the nature of the offence, the intention with which the gun was fired, and the factors that should be taken into account in determining the severity of the punishment. The court had to weigh the principles of just punishment, deterrence, and denunciation against the mitigating factors such as the timing of the guilty plea and the impact of COVID-19. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate whether the sentences imposed were commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offenders.

The court found that the primary judge had not sufficiently considered the utilitarian value of the guilty plea and the impact of COVID-19 on the offenders' lives. The court held that the sentences were too severe, given the mitigating factors, and accordingly reduced the sentences. Williams’ total effective sentence was reduced to 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years. Godfrey’s total effective sentence was reduced to seven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing, including the early guilty plea and the unique circumstances caused by the pandemic.

The court ordered that the sentences be amended in accordance with the above findings. Williams and Godfrey's sentences were adjusted to reflect a more balanced consideration of the mitigating factors and the principles of sentencing.

Orders