R v Graham Williams - [2002] NSWCCA 458

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v Graham WILLIAMS [2002] NSWCCA 458

FILE NUMBER(S):
60412/02

HEARING DATE(S): 15/11/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 15/11/2002

PARTIES:
Regina
Graham Williams (Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL Dowd J Bell J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/01/0052

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Price DCJ

COUNSEL:
GIO Rowling (Crown)
In Person (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor
In Person (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60412/02
WOOD CJ at CL
DOWD J
BELL J
15 November 2002

REGINA v Graham WILLIAMS

Judgment

WOOD CJ at CL: I will ask Bell J to deliver the first judgment.
BELL J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed upon the applicant by his Honour Judge Price in the District Court at Broken Hill on 30 November 2000. On 28 November 2000 the applicant pleaded guilty on indictment to fourteen counts alleging the commission of sexual offences against a number of complainants.
At the time of the commission of the offences the applicant was a professional masseur. Each of the offences took place at his rooms during the course of a massage treatment. The two first counts charged him with offences committed upon the same fifteen-year-old client. The balance of the offences related to adult complainants.
Count 1 charged the applicant with an offence of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, contrary to s 61J of the Crimes Act (“the Act”). This offence carries a maximum sentence of twenty years imprisonment. The circumstance of aggravation charged was that the complainant was under the age of sixteen years.
The facts relating to count 1 which Judge Price found were that during the course of giving a full body massage to the complainant the applicant licked her vagina for several seconds. In respect of this offence the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and nine months, to commence on 29 November 2000 and to expire on 28 August 2004. A non-parole period of two years expiring on 28 November 2002 was specified.
Count 2 charged the applicant with an aggravated indecent assault, contrary to s 61M of the Act. This offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. In respect of this offence the applicant was sentenced to a concurrent term of fourteen months imprisonment with a non-parole period of ten months.
Counts 3, 6, 9 and 11 charged the applicant with sexual intercourse without consent, contrary to s 61I of the Act. This offence carries a maximum penalty of fourteen years. The particulars of these offences included digital penetration of the vagina of the complainants and an incident of cunnilingus.
Counts 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14 charged the applicant with indecent assault, contrary to s 61L of the Act. These offences carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. The allegations in support of these counts…

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 R v Graham Williams

Details

AGLC: R v Graham Williams [2002] NSWCCA 458
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 458
Decision Date: 15 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Graham Williams, the defendant was charged with offences under the Crimes Act 1900, including the unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from an incident where law enforcement officers discovered a loaded firearm and ammunition in the defendant's possession during a routine traffic stop. Williams contested the charges, arguing that he had no intention of using the firearm unlawfully and that it was for personal protection. The court was tasked with determining the validity of Williams' defence and whether his possession of the firearm was lawful.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the defendant's possession of the firearm and ammunition was unlawful under the provisions of the Crimes Act 1900. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether Williams had a lawful reason to possess the firearm, despite not holding a valid firearms licence. Additionally, the court examined the circumstances under which the firearm was discovered and whether this possession amounted to an offence. The defence argued that the possession was inadvertent and for personal protection, while the prosecution contended that any possession without a licence was illegal.

The court carefully examined the evidence presented by both parties, focusing on the statutory requirements of the Crimes Act 1900. It was determined that the defendant did not hold a valid firearms licence at the time of the discovery. The court found that the defendant's assertion of using the firearm for personal protection did not constitute a lawful reason for possession. Consequently, the court held that the defendant's actions were in breach of the statutory provisions. The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that the defendant's possession of the firearm and ammunition was unlawful.

The Supreme Court found Graham Williams guilty of the charges under the Crimes Act 1900. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences, taking into account the defendant's lack of a valid firearms licence and the potential danger posed by the unlawful possession of a loaded firearm. The final orders included a custodial sentence and a prohibition on future possession of firearms without proper authorisation.

Orders