Ivan Raymond Williams v the Queen - [1979] FCA 14

,rll! l~:l!,'l~

1 ';,!):.l;'>

'l.ll,!

. - ........ .......

. .

L V I : , - :

I , ,

' 1 ,.:><,\-l

, - l ' -

!.l::

. .

! . . I , , , - ,

: I .

. - -

;

, f . ,

, .

, ~ r i I L l l ,	t ? l	!	,	I l 1	:	8 : ,	,	7	I i	l , ' 1 , -	,
' .I .-.

till. 1 1 1 1 . 1

l':.

7 - ' m . .

"111

Lh.ll

l l c L ~ J C I

c t<Cl

: ! 2

:1a111

c ' '

1 ' 1 JL:

C ! :

1.11:

L . i i 1 . J ' : i n .

. . I

t h e

1111 c x n t l c n t l 1 . 1 t

p.17-t tl ~ r . 0 1

. . I .

t o b c ~ ~ c c , l ; : ~ d

L')

;!t

: ;: 1,;

C , J ;

l , , : !

G r ~ J f ~ t l l . .

3 s :I

J 'L'C

C B :

T C ' . , ~ I ~ ~

; ] , , i t ,

L : . l

i i , , '

o f

I l l & -

C : ~ ~ l l l l l < ~ l ,

. L %:l

t!l

,111:

t ! lC

Au* , t rd I I : I I I

<,!]>I

t . 1 1

I < . ] :

L! u : y

:I,::I

NI:.

a ; ; , 1 1 1 1 5 1

( I l l ?

~ l ~ ~ ' c ! l . l l l l ~

t < ~ l , l l - , i , , ~

f , 1 v o 1 1 1 ,111 l).

1 0 1

111111. "

! 1 c g I 1 ' l .

t l : . ' ~ c

l \ : ]>

LlJl~l!> i l C \ i c ' ( 1

L!? L

. - .

Q S

otlj c ' c t l o n s

t o ,

a11~I . . I ~ < ~ I < , , I , L ~ I : : ~

L 7 , !

l , (

J I I < J C ~ L I ~ C

, l ;

- i i l l c - i ~

L !…

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 Ivan Raymond Williams v the Queen

Details

AGLC: Ivan Raymond Williams v the Queen [1979] FCA 14
Case: [1979] FCA 14
Decision Date: 2 Mar 1979

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ivan Raymond Williams appealed against his convictions and sentences for bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery, as determined by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The central issue before the court was whether there was a common design amongst the conspirators that could support the conspiracy charge. Specifically, the court needed to determine if there was sufficient evidence that the conspirators shared a common purpose to corruptly influence police officers in relation to charges against the accused, or if their purposes were divergent. The court examined the statutory interpretation of bribery under the Crimes Act 1914, confirming that the ordinary rules of construction applied. The court found that while the jury was correctly instructed on the need for a common design, there was an ambiguity in the summing up that could have misled the jury regarding the scope and nature of the common design required.

The court concluded that the ambiguity in the summing up regarding the common design in the conspiracy charge led to a deficiency in the evidence presented to the jury. This was significant enough to warrant a new trial on the conspiracy charge. The court dismissed the appeal regarding the bribery charges and their associated sentences, finding that the evidence was sufficient for those convictions. However, the court allowed the appeal on the conspiracy charge, finding that the lack of clarity in the summing up meant the jury might not have been properly directed on the issue of common design. Consequently, the court ordered a new trial for the conspiracy charge while dismissing the appeal in relation to the bribery charges.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal regarding the bribery charges and their sentences, but to uphold the appeal on the conspiracy charge, resulting in a new trial for that offence.

Orders