DPP v Williamson - [2018] VSC 172

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0077

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

ADAM WILLIAMSON

---

JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 October 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 April 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Williamson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 172 First revision 28 May 2018

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Statutory Murder under s 3A of the Crimes Act — Aggravated Burglary — Theft — Deceased fatally stabbed by Co-offender in course of armed robbery at home of deceased — Offender was present and participated in foundational offence of armed robbery — Co-offender pleaded guilty to murder at common law, aggravated burglary and theft and assisted authorities in prosecution of offender — Co-offender re-sentenced by Court of Appeal following successful Director’s appeal — Offender given leave to change his pleas of guilty after arraignment — Late pleas of guilty — Parity considerations — Offender knew the deceased personally and selected his home for aggravated burglary — Consideration of roles and subjective factors — DPP v Cooper [2018] VSCA 21 — DPP v Arthur [2018] VSCA 37.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Lewis	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Johns QC	Theo Magazis Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Adam Williamson you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Kenneth Handford contrary to s 3A of the Crimes Act1958, (statutory murder) along with a charge of aggravated burglary and a charge of theft. The maximum sentence of imprisonment for murder is life, and for aggravated burglary is 25 years. Theft carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

The offences were committed by you and your co-offender, Jonathon Cooper, on 14 September 2015 at 1028 Barkstead Road, Springbank. The deceased, Kenneth Handford, an elderly widower, lived alone in a cottage there. He was a World War II veteran who had served with the RAAF. He was 89 years old at the time of his death. He is survived by an adult son and daughter, five grandchildren and three great grandchildren.

Your co-offender, Cooper, was sentenced by me on 21 April 2017.[1] His sentence was then increased by the Court of Appeal on 12 February 2018.[2] Adam Rowe, who pleaded guilty to assist offender, was sentenced on 8 July 2016 by T Forrest J.[3]
[1]DPP v Cooper [2017] VSC 218R.
[2]DPP v Cooper [2018] VSCA 21.
[3]R v Rowe [2016] VSC 388R (8 July 2016) dealt with for accessory after the fact to murder and handling stolen goods.

In sentencing you, I have had regard to the Crown Opening for the plea hearing that was read in open court, along with the depositions and submissions of both parties and the exhibits tendered on the plea. I have also paid attention to the police statement made by Cooper and your counsel's cross-examination of Cooper and Rowe on a pre-trial Basha hearing as well…

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 Williamson

Details

AGLC: DPP v Williamson [2018] VSC 172
Case: [2018] VSC 172
Decision Date: 17 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of DPP v Williamson, the respondent, Williamson, was charged with statutory murder under section 3A of the Crimes Act, as well as aggravated burglary and theft. The dispute arose from an incident where Williamson and a co-offender carried out an armed robbery at the home of the deceased, during which the deceased was fatally stabbed. The co-offender had pleaded guilty to murder, aggravated burglary and theft, and subsequently assisted in the prosecution of Williamson.

The primary legal issues the court had to determine were the appropriate sentence for Williamson given his involvement in the armed robbery, the role he played, and the subjective factors that needed to be considered. These included whether Williamson knew the deceased personally, and whether he had selected the deceased's home for the aggravated burglary. The court also had to consider the principle of parity in sentencing between co-offenders, as the co-offender had been re-sentenced by the Court of Appeal following a successful appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The court held that Williamson's role in the foundational offence was significant, and that he had knowledge of the deceased personally, which played a part in selecting the victim's home. The court also noted that Williamson had delayed in changing his plea, which had implications for the sentencing process. After considering the relevant legal principles and authorities, the court determined that an appropriate sentence would reflect the seriousness of the offence and ensure parity between co-offenders. The court ordered that Williamson be sentenced accordingly.

The final orders of the court were that Williamson be sentenced for his role in the statutory murder, aggravated burglary, and theft, taking into account the subjective factors and ensuring parity with the co-offender's sentence.

Orders