DPP v Williams & Godfrey
[2020] VSC 483
•7 August 2020
| 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 maximum penalty for manslaughter is twenty years’ imprisonment and, as manslaughter is a category 2 offence under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (‘Sentencing Act’), I am required to make an order for a custodial sentence under Division 2 of Part 3 of the Sentencing Act.[1] The maximum penalty for reckless conduct endangering serious injury is five years’ imprisonment. It is now my responsibility to sentence both of you for these crimes.
[1]Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(2H) (‘Sentencing Act’).
Background and circumstances of offending
You are half-brothers, both being the sons of Tracey Godfrey, who was previously sentenced by me as a lesser offender in relation to these same events.[2] David Lyons — the father of you, John Godfrey, and stepfather of you, Craig Williams — has also been sentenced for his role in these matters.[3]
[2]DPP v Godfrey [2020] VSC 197.
[3]DPP v Lyons [2019] VSC 602.
In September 2017, you, Craig Williams, resided at [redacted], Rosebud. This was your mother’s residence, and you lived in a tent erected in the backyard.
The events on 3 September appear to have been the culmination of several weeks of building tension between the deceased and both of you — although, particularly in relation to you, Craig Williams.
It seems to be common ground that the catalyst for this tension was an incident that occurred in late July 2017, involving a man named SH, a friend of the deceased. On that day, you, John Godfrey, were in a vehicle with SH, when you made some disparaging remarks about the deceased that SH took exception to. At the end of the journey, you got out of the vehicle and assaulted SH to the face through the car window. That conduct is not the subject of any charge.
After this incident, it is assumed that your comments, John Godfrey, about the deceased in his absence were conveyed to him and, on 9 August 2017, he contacted you, Craig Williams, using Facebook Messenger. You and he exchanged aggressive and confrontational messages, during which the deceased apparently referred to you, Craig Williams, as a ‘putrid dog’.
On the following day, in the presence of Mr Lyons, you, Craig Williams, called the deceased using Facebook Messenger. It was again a hostile conversation and, in the course of trading threats, you discussed meeting. You told the deceased to come to your residence that day. However, the deceased replied he could not. After that phone call, you, John Godfrey, asked you, Craig Williams, whether there had been any further developments and you, Craig Williams, replied, ‘War’.
On the morning of the shooting, you, Craig Williams, told one of your girlfriends, Chai Gray, that you had been getting messages from the deceased and that you were going to kill him or ‘hurt him really bad’. You also made enquiries about obtaining a firearm from a family friend who advised he no longer had one.
Later that afternoon, the deceased was driven by a man named Darren Williams to the [redacted] residence. When he got there, he spoke to your mother, who advised that you, Craig Williams, were not at home. The deceased asked your mother to relay to you that he had come by. When she did so upon your return, you apparently became angry.
You, Craig Williams, then contacted a friend, Jay Culwick. When you first called him, you advised Mr Culwick that the deceased had been to your house and had spoken to your mother. You called him again later and asked whether he had a gun that you could borrow.
Around 6 pm that evening, SH called the deceased. He told him about the July incident with you, John Godfrey, and informed him that you had called him a ‘dog’. The deceased was apparently unhappy to hear this. The deceased then attempted to get your mobile number, Craig Williams, from another of your girlfriends, Kassye Ward. During their exchange, Ms Ward refused to give him your number, and the deceased again referred to you, Craig Williams, as a ‘putrid dog’. Ms Ward then sent you a text message to say that the deceased had been asking around for your number.
At approximately 7:30 pm, you, Craig Williams, contacted Mr Lyons, and asked him to come to the [redacted] residence as you believed the deceased would be returning. Mr Lyons left for the residence immediately with you, John Godfrey.
Ten minutes later, the deceased called you, Craig Williams, using Facebook Messenger. During your call, Mr Lyons and you, John Godfrey, arrived at the house. You, Craig Williams, had the phone on speaker, so that it could be heard by the others. While the discussion was initially civil, it became heated when the deceased demanded that you, John Godfrey, apologise to SH for assaulting him. It appears that tempers flared, and the deceased said, ‘I’m coming around, you’re going to get shot. I’m going to shoot you’. You, Craig Williams, are alleged to have responded with, ‘Bring it on. Come around’.
The two of you began to make preparations for a confrontation. You, Craig Williams, armed yourself with a .22 rifle, onto which you attached a torch. You are alleged to have then given you, John Godfrey, a handgun. You, John Godfrey, asked how to fire the weapon as you were unfamiliar with firearms, and you, Craig Williams, helped to load it. You, John Godfrey, then told your mother to get her younger children, your half-siblings, out of the house with Ms Gray.
There was an extensive closed-circuit television (‘CCTV’) system set up at the premises. Several cameras were linked to a hard drive and monitor in the house. The remaining cameras were linked to a hard drive and monitor inside the tent where you, Craig Williams, lived. While your mother and Ms Gray were getting the children ready to leave, you, Craig Williams, told your mother to turn off the CCTV system inside the residence.
Shortly after 8 pm, the deceased attempted to call you, Craig Williams, to establish your whereabouts. He had been waiting for you at SH residence, which was also in [redacted], but you did not answer. The deceased and his associates, Darren Williams, Ben Ingram and SH, decided to drive to your residence. Darren Williams drove the vehicle, and the deceased sat in the front passenger seat. Mr Ingram and SH were seated in the back seat. According to the prosecution, the vehicle contained no firearms but did contain some cut-down golf clubs. The vehicle drove slowly past your residence before making a U-turn to park in front.
When they arrived, the two of you, along with Mr Lyons, went out to the front yard, placing yourselves between a vehicle in the driveway and the side fence of the property. You, Craig Williams, were holding the rifle, and you, John Godfrey, were holding the loaded handgun. Mr Lyons had armed himself with a car part.
The deceased started to get out of his vehicle, and you, Craig Williams, stepped out from behind the car. You asked who was there, and the deceased responded that it was him. It was around that time that witnesses heard yelling, including one voice saying, ‘You’re gone’. It is not clear who said those words, and I do not proceed on the basis that one or other of you did so. However, there was an obvious air of hostility.
The deceased then saw that you, Craig Williams, were aiming your rifle at him. He said, ‘Put that away. Don’t be silly’. The deceased then effectively retreated back into the vehicle and indicated to driver that they should leave, saying, ‘Come on, let’s go – we don’t need any trouble’. Before they could drive away, you, Craig Williams, fired into the vehicle. A bullet passed through the closed, front-passenger car window and struck the deceased in the head. That injury was ultimately catastrophic for him.
You acknowledge that you fired the fatal shot, but it was put on your behalf that you only fired the gun to frighten the vehicle’s occupants away. Your intent upon firing the gun was in contention on the hearing of the plea, and I shall return to that issue later.
It is further alleged that, as the vehicle drove away, you, Craig Williams, continued to fire your weapon at the vehicle. A bullet passed through the vehicle, missing all of its occupants and hitting the front windscreen.
The vehicle continued along [redacted] before breaking down several blocks away. Paramedics were called to attend, and the deceased was airlifted to the Alfred Hospital. He died at about 4 pm on 4 September 2017 from the single gunshot wound to his head.
Post-offence conduct
After the shooting, you, Craig Williams, went into the house and directed your mother to unplug the CCTV hard drive, which you then took to your tent. You then made a first attempt at sawing off the barrel of the rifle you had used.
Mr Culwick then arrived at the house, and you, Craig Williams, told him, ‘I didn’t hit him. I let off a couple of shots’. You then instructed Mr Culwick, Mr Lyons and you, John Godfrey, to look for discharged ammunition cartridges in the front yard. Two were located and given to you, Craig Williams. Both of you and Mr Lyons discussed how many shots had been fired to confirm whether all the cartridges had been found.
You, Craig Williams, took the rifle, CCTV hard drives and a shovel, and left the residence with your girlfriend, Rebecca Cross, in her vehicle. You then attended at your friend Jesse Wilson’s residence and obtained a hacksaw. Mr Wilson exited his residence and you, Craig Williams, asked him to assault you. However, he did not do so and you left.
You, Craig Williams, and Ms Cross then drove to various locations along the Mornington Peninsula, where you destroyed and disposed of the CCTV hard drive. You also finished cutting the rifle with the saw and disposed of it as well. Some of those items were later recovered by police.
While you were disposing of this evidence, you, John Godfrey, and Mr Lyons drove to a paddock on Spray Street, Rosebud and buried the handgun. The two of you kept in contact during this time and, in one phone conversation, you, John Godfrey, told you, Craig Williams, that, ‘The job’s done. Don’t worry about it’.
Finally, at around midnight, you, Craig Williams, and Ms Cross met you, John Godfrey, at your home in Rye. You, Craig Williams, then told Mr Lyons to drive ahead of you back to [redacted], so that Mr Lyons could alert you by phone if he saw police.
Before returning to the residence, you, Craig Williams, suggested to Ms Cross that you hide her vehicle at a Safeway in Jetty Road, Rosebud. After doing so, you contacted Mr Culwick for a ride from the Safeway back to your residence. On the drive, you and Mr Culwick developed an alibi for the time of the shooting.
The following day, 4 September 2017, both of you were at [redacted] with Mr Lyons, when he located an additional spent cartridge and disposed of it. It is also alleged that, later that evening, while watching a news report of the deceased’s death, you, Craig Williams, laughed and told Ms Cross you wished you had not done it.
The arrest of Craig Williams
At approximately 8:30 pm on 4 September 2017, members of the Special Operations Unit attended at [redacted] to arrest you, Craig Williams. You failed to surrender for approximately 10 hours. Your subsequent conversations with the Victoria Police negotiators were recorded and included admissions made by you in relation to the offence.
During your arrest, you sustained injuries for which you were treated at the Frankston Hospital. While there, you are alleged to have made further admissions to medical staff as well as a uniformed police officer. You said you shot the deceased because ‘he came to [your] house and was threatening [your] family’.
The arrest of John Godfrey
On 7 September 2017, you, John Godfrey, were tipped off by your partner’s sister that the police were conducting searches in the Dromana area for your firearms. While you, John Godfrey, were initially confident they would not find anything, you later told your father, Mr Lyons, that you needed to leave the state.
In the following days, you, John Godfrey, and your partner took a bus to Sydney. You resided in Smithfield, New South Wales until your arrest there on 16 April 2018.
You, John Godfrey, were interviewed on 16 and 18 April. In these interviews, you made several statements about what occurred, including that you did not fire the handgun you were holding.
Victim impact statements
I received two victim impact statements during the hearing on 1 June 2020. One was from the mother of the deceased, Fiona Dipietro, and the other was from his aunt, Maria McKenzie. Mrs Dipietro read her statement to the Court, and I have read the statement of Mrs McKenzie. It is to be expected that Mrs Dipietro is devastated by the death of her son and that its effects will be lifelong for her and her family. Likewise Mrs McKenzie, as part of that family, feels that devastating effect of what has occurred.
The Court extends its sympathy to the Dipietro family. Sadly, there is nothing I can do or say that will change the suffering they are feeling. These statements again demonstrate the destruction that is caused by a senseless and fatal act like this. I have taken Mrs Dipietro’s and Mrs McKenzie’s victim impact statements into account in determining the sentence that I should impose on both of you.
Antecedents
Craig Williams
Craig Williams, you have a significant criminal history. It began in 2003, when you were a teenager, with various burglary and theft offences. You received your first period of detention in 2004.
In 2005, you were convicted of reckless conduct endangering serious injury and weapons offences. That same year, you were sentenced to 15 months’ detention in a youth training centre for offences including aggravated burglary with a person present and with an offensive weapon, making a threat to kill, and assaulting and resisting police. You received several convictions for driving and property offences throughout 2006 and 2007.
In 2008, you were convicted of intentionally causing serious injury and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. After your release, your offending behaviour continued, and you received further convictions for offences involving violence, weapons and stolen property.
Your more recent offending included reckless conduct endangering life and serious injury as well as drug offences. This is a very poor record and, given its nature and duration, it is difficult not to be dubious about your prospects for rehabilitation. I will return to that.
John Godfrey
John Godfrey, notwithstanding your difficult family background and substantial use of alcohol and drugs, you have no prior convictions. This is to your credit and counts in your favour for the present purposes and my estimation of your future prospects.
Personal circumstances
Craig Williams
Craig Williams, you are now almost 33 years of age, having been born on 15 August 1987. You have lived in the Frankston and Mornington Peninsula area for your entire life.
Your parents separated when you were an infant and, shortly thereafter, your mother began a relationship with Mr Lyons. You report having a good relationship with your parents and Mr Lyons, although you describe experiencing physical abuse from both your biological father and Mr Lyons as a child.
You have five half-siblings, one of whom passed away tragically in 2001. It appears much changed for you after her death.
You left school in Year 8 or 9 and began to smoke marijuana regularly. You transitioned to using dexamphetamine, without a prescription, at the age of 18 or 19 and have used amphetamines daily since then. In the weeks leading up to the shooting, you report using a combination of marijuana, methamphetamine, dexamphetamine, GHB and steroids.
You have a brief work history including stints as a concreter, roof tiler and high-pressure cleaner. However, you ultimately ceased working when you returned to substance abuse.
Your mental health history was set out in a psychological report by Mr Jeffrey Cummins, which was prepared for the purposes of this plea. He noted that, for several years before your arrest, you were diagnosed and treated by your general practitioner for PTSD, primarily stemming from the accidental death of your half-sister. Mr Cummins confirmed the likely diagnosis of complex PTSD. Under your general practitioner’s care, you were regularly prescribed the mood-stabilising and antipsychotic medication, Seroquel. You also indicated that you previously made two attempts on your own life.
Whilst you have been on remand, you have commenced methadone and Olanzapine. You have also trialled a number of antidepressants. For the first time, you are receiving counselling through Caraniche, which you report as being very supportive. You have remained free of illicit drugs during this period in custody.
It was put on your behalf that your time in custody has been well spent as a working prisoner. With some interruptions, you have been at the Melbourne Assessment Prison since 2018 and, despite some restrictions caused by COVID-19, you have held privileged positions as a unit billet and now as a peer educator. You have also completed certificates in computer skills and have undertaken courses in kitchen operations, construction, and mental health and wellbeing. You are entitled to credit for endeavouring to make the best of a difficult situation.
John Godfrey
You are now 27 years of age and were 24 years when you committed this offence. As with your older, half-brother, Craig Williams, you grew up in Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula. Your father spent much of your early life in prison, and you and your half-siblings were raised by your mother. You also report that you experienced physical abuse by your father, Mr Lyons, as a child.
Your education began at Rosebud Primary School and then Rosebud High School where you completed Year 8. You did the equivalent of Years 9 and 10 at Chisholm Institute of TAFE before beginning a cabinet maker apprenticeship for nine months. You switched to another apprenticeship as boilermaker and, although you did not complete the apprenticeship, you went on to work in that field. From the age of 20, you were employed, from time to time, by a fencing company based in Rosebud for approximately two and a half years. You report enjoying the work, but soon found yourself losing your way due to family instability and your substance abuse.
Your background, including your family history and drug use, was detailed in the psychological report by forensic psychiatrist David Ball tendered on your behalf. He reports that the use of drugs by both your parents was influential in your decision to begin using cannabis around the age 12 or 13. You later commenced using methylamphetamine daily until the age of 22.
Mr Ball also indicated that you narrowly fall short of the diagnostic criteria for a schizoid personality disorder. However, you do meet the criteria for severe PTSD, the cause of which is directly linked to the shooting in this matter. That is a condition for which, so far, you have not been treated. Dr Ball believes that your safe management in the community presents a number of challenges due to the state of your mental health.
It was put on your behalf, John Godfrey, that you have spent the majority of your time on remand in protective custody, which has limited your access to coursework. Nevertheless, you have completed several courses in custody, including those related to alcohol, depression and computer skills.
Pleas of guilty
Your pleas of guilty came at a late stage in these proceedings. However, that must be viewed in the context that you were both charged with murder and were not willing to plead guilty to that offence. Counsel on your behalf have submitted that your pleas should be regarded as having been entered at the first available forensic opportunity, that is, once the prosecution offered a plea for the appropriate charge.
I also note that the trial in this matter was listed to commence on 10 March 2020 and the State Government first declared the State of Emergency in response to COVID-19 on 16 March. If this matter had proceeded to trial as planned, in all likelihood, it either would not have started or, if started, may not have been able to be concluded. Therefore, in my opinion, for that reason alone, the finalisation of this matter through your guilty pleas means their utilitarian value is significant.
Craig Williams, it was submitted that you have always taken responsibility for causing the death of the deceased, and your plea to the appropriate charge is demonstrative of your remorse. Counsel on your behalf, John Godfrey, submitted that your plea represented some remorse on your part for what has occurred.
The fact that you pleaded guilty does not, of itself, demonstrate remorse. I remain unpersuaded that you, Craig Williams, are remorseful despite your counsel’s suggestion. As to you, John Godfrey, there may be an element of remorse in your plea of guilty.
Prospects of rehabilitation
Craig Williams
Your prospects of rehabilitation, Craig Williams, were described by your counsel as ‘not without merit’. Whilst in custody, you have finally undertaken counselling and have used your time productively. Counsel on your behalf submitted that you have matured significantly in prison and now demonstrate insight into your polysubstance abuse. However, Mr Cummins assessed your risk of committing a violent offence as moderate. He concluded that you, Craig Williams, will require further treatment, especially in relation to anger management, drug relapse and trauma. The best I can say is that I am guarded about your prospects of rehabilitation.
John Godfrey
As to you, John Godfrey, you are now 27 years of age and without prior convictions. Your counsel has urged me to conclude that your prospects for rehabilitation are good based on the report of Mr Ball. In his report, he concluded that your management in the community presented challenges, given your schizoid personality features and PTSD. Mr Ball was of the opinion that you would need to be treated, monitored and supervised given your present mental state. On that issue, I must also take into account your lack of criminal history. I am prepared to accept your prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable.
The relevance of COVID-19
For many months now, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been felt the world over. Since February 2020, there has been discussion by trial and appellate courts in this jurisdiction about the effect of this pandemic on prisoners and, accordingly, in sentencing in circumstances such as these.
I should note that, as at the date of the imposition of this sentence, the Melbourne metropolitan area has just begun a “Stage 4” lockdown that has imposed significant restrictions on the mobility of the whole population. This is a response to a prevalence of infections within the community that is dramatically worse than at the hearing of the plea in June. It is a matter of public record that, for the foreseeable future, Victoria’s situation is extremely serious given the current volume of community transmission and, as the Premier of Victoria says regularly, the virus is ‘wildly infectious’. There obviously can be no immunity from this for prisons.
In Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 60 (‘Brown’), a decision handed down in March 2020, the Court of Appeal noted:
With regard to the COVID-19pandemic, and the submission put forward on behalf of the applicant in that regard, we readily acknowledge that this is a matter that is certain to come before this Court again in the immediate future. In the absence of any adequate material concerning the impact of the virus upon the Corrections system, as matters stand, and given that the situation is one that is rapidly evolving, we are hesitant to express a general statement of principle regarding how this Court (and others) should deal with this crisis as regards its effect upon relevant sentencing principles. We do accept, however, that the situation is causing additional stress and concern for prisoners and their families, as it is for every member of the community. The extent to which that may be taken into account, if at all, will be a matter to be resolved on the particular facts of any individual case.[4]
[4][2020] VSCA 60 [48].
Later in Astbury v The Queen (No 2),[5] the Court confirmed that it was proper to take into account the practical effect of prison lockdowns on those in custody and the stress they experience due to the increased vulnerability to infection in the prison environment.
[5][2020] VSCA 158.
Corrections Victoria have advised on their website that several prisoners at the Metropolitan Remand Centre and the Melbourne Assessment Prison have tested positive for the virus. A prison officer at Ravenhall has also tested positive. It can therefore no longer be said that the virus has been kept at bay within the prison system.
In this matter, it was not put that either of you had an underlying condition that made you particularly susceptible to serious illness if you were infected. However, as the Court of Appeal indicated in Brown, both of you are nevertheless affected. First, there is the stress that accompanies of the risk of infection whilst in custody and the inability to take your own precautions. That stress may be compounded by the concern for the wellbeing on your family and friends in the community. Second, there remains a ban on personal visits, which is a significant loss and makes the time in custody more burdensome. Despite efforts to connect persons in custody with family and friends over the phone or video conferencing, the increased demand creates other difficulties. Other restrictions imposed include the closing of courses within the gaols, and the movement and contact of prisoners with the mainstream, I assume, has been significantly curtailed.
We in the community now have some concept of the word “lockdown” as it applies to us. One can easily imagine how much more onerous a prison lockdown must be for those who have the misfortune to be there. I propose to proceed on the basis that it is appropriate to take these matters into account in imposing sentences on you.
Analysis
Before me is a matter where a relatively trivial dispute was inflamed to the point that it resulted in a man’s death. By your words and actions, it appears you both forgot that you were not living in a television crime drama and that, in the real world, gun violence kills and its perpetrators face serious penalties. For that reason alone, general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment have particular significance in this case.
The particular features of this incident make this a difficult sentencing procedure for the following reason.
As I made clear to counsel during the plea hearing, I do not find it useful to classify whether this is a ‘serious example’ of the offence of manslaughter. Any offence of manslaughter is very serious — a man was killed.
It was put on your behalf, Craig Williams, that the circumstances that led up to this shooting are critical to the assessment of this offence and your moral culpability, including the threats by the deceased towards you.
It is not in contest that the deceased had a violent reputation and that you were aware of it. You were, therefore, very apprehensive about the deceased man and his associates attending at the premises where your family resided. However, you played your part in fuelling the aggression with the deceased, and you appeared to encourage a confrontation and made preparations for it by obtaining a firearm that you ultimately used.
Counsel on your behalf submitted that, when you fired the rifle into the vehicle containing the deceased, you did so without the intent to harm any of its occupants and only intended to frighten them away.
The Crown did not accept that your intention was purely intimidation. However, the senior prosecutor submitted that the shots that you, Craig Williams, fired into the vehicle were not accompanied by murderous intent, and instead must have been to cause something less than really serious injury to one of the occupants of the vehicle.
In further submissions on this point at my invitation, counsel on your behalf made the submission that, if in fact you were firing deliberately at the deceased for a reason other than to frighten him, that action is only consistent with a murderous intent. Since the Crown accepted that it was not your intention to cause death or really serious injury, the only alternative is that you must have intended to scare the vehicle’s occupants. He submitted that it is open to me to conclude your intention was to shoot the car rather than any occupant of the car.
In response, the Crown maintained its position and urged that you be sentenced on the basis that you shot a firearm deliberately at the occupants of the car with an intention less than a murderous one.
I am willing to accept that you were frightened by the deceased and those who might accompany him to your premises, given their reputation. I also accept that threats were made by the deceased towards you, Craig Williams.
However, the evidence suggests that the deceased retreated back into the vehicle once he observed you aiming a firearm at him. The evidence suggests that the deceased said words to the effect that he did not want any trouble before re-entering the vehicle. There also is no evidence that you instructed them to leave.
Yet, you fired into the vehicle you knew to be occupied. If your intention was simply to frighten those in the vehicle, it was clear you had already done so. As I noted in argument, you could have fired a warning shot away from the vehicle or simply continued to point the rifle, as that had already prompted a retreat.
I am prepared to accept that you wanted them to leave, but I am not persuaded that your actions in firing a gun into the vehicle from a short distance away were just an act of intimidation.
I therefore propose to sentence you, Craig Williams, on the basis that, although you feared its occupants, when you shot into the vehicle, you intended to harm one or more of the men inside to a level of something less than the infliction of really serious injury.
That being the case, the level of dangerousness as an element of the charge of manslaughter was very high indeed and make this a particularly serious example of the offence.
As for you, John Godfrey, you were complicit in this killing on the basis I have stated. You seem to have become involved somewhat reluctantly, having offered to apologise for your part in the dispute. There is no evidence at all as to your state of mind when the shots were fired or what your subjective intention was at that point. You were in possession of loaded gun, which, it is accepted, you did not fire.
Conclusion
In my opinion, the appropriate sentence to impose on you is as follows.
As to you, Craig Williams, on Charge 1, manslaughter, you will be sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of nine years. On Charge 2, reckless conduct endangering life, you will be sentenced to be imprisoned for three years.
I direct that one year of the sentence on Charge 2 be served cumulatively on the sentence on Charge 1. The total effective sentence is therefore 10 years. I fix a period of seven years to be served by you before you are eligible to apply for release on parole.
I declare that the pre-sentence detention is a period of 1068 days, including this day, and I direct that be recorded and reckoned as time already served.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I declare that had you not pleaded guilty and had stood trial on these charges, the total effective sentence I would have imposed would have been 12 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years.
As to you, John Godfrey, on Charge 1, the charge of manslaughter, you will be sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of seven years. I fix a period of four years to be served by you before you are eligible to apply for release on parole.
I declare that the pre-sentence detention is a period of 845 days, including this day, and I direct that be recorded and reckoned as time already served.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I declare that had you not pleaded guilty and had stood trial on these charges, the total effective I would have imposed would have been nine years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years.
7
4
0