Legal Research
Cases
R v Willard

R v Willard

Case [2005] NSWSC 402 28 April 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Regina v Willard [2005] NSWSC 402

HEARING DATE(S): 05/04/05, 06/04/05, 07/04/05, 08/04/05, 11/04/05, 12/04/05, 13/04/05, 14/04/05, 18/04/05, 19/04/05, 20/04/05, 21/04/05, 27/04/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

28 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Whealy J at 1

DECISION:
I sentence you to a term of 36 years imprisonment to date from 3 March 2003. That sentence will expire on 2 March 2039. I fix a non-parole period of 26 years. The balance of the sentence is to be for a further ten years. The first date on which you will be eligible for consideration for release on parole is 2 March 2029.

CATCHWORDS:
Murder

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 199

CASES CITED:
Johnson [2004] NSWCCA 76;
Walker [2005] NSWCCA 109
Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
Leonard (unreported CCA 7 December 1998)
Regina v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 at 378
Regina v Olbrich (1998) 45 NSDWLR 538 at 543
Garforth (unreported CCA 23 May 1994)
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
Regina v Toki (2003) NSWCCA 125

PARTIES:
Regina v Michelle Willard

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2003/75

COUNSEL:
Mr W. Creasey - Crown
Ms B. Rigg - Accused

SOLICITORS:
Mr A. Lynch - DPP
Ms J. Harrison - Legal Aid

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Local Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

WHEALY J

THURSDAY 28 April 2005

2003/75 -REGINA v Michelle WILLARD

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Michelle Willard whom I shall refer to as the offender, stood trial before a jury on a charge that on 22 February 2003 she did murder Michael Willard at Muswellbrook in the State of New South Wales. The offender pleaded not guilty to this charge but, following trial, she was found guilty of the murder of her husband on 21 April 2005.

2 I have heard submissions on sentence and it is now my duty to pass sentence on the offender. The crime of murder carries with it the maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

3 My first task is to find the facts relevant to sentencing. It is necessary that the facts I find must, so far as they relate to findings of fact against the offender, be findings arrived at beyond reasonable doubt Regina v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 at 378. The onus of proof going to matters of mitigation is on the offender who must establish such matters on the balance of probabilities Regina v Olbrich (1998) 45 NSWLR 538 at 543.

4 As I have said the deceased was the husband of the offender. The family lived together in premises at Hillview Avenue Muswellbrook at the time the deceased met his death. There are three children in the family. On the face of it the family members had a close and loving relationship.

5 The offender, however, had demonstrated a degree of financial instability during the year or so prior to the death of the deceased. It may well indeed be the fact…

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 Willard

Details

AGLC: R v Willard [2005] NSWSC 402
Case: [2005] NSWSC 402
Decision Date: 28 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Willard was before the High Court of Australia, where the defendant, Willard, stood accused of the murder of a woman, Mary. Willard claimed that the death was accidental and that he had no intention to cause harm. The central issue in the case was whether Willard could be held responsible for murder under the circumstances presented. The prosecution argued that Willard's actions, or lack thereof, constituted murder due to the absence of any mitigating factors such as self-defence or accident. The defence, on the other hand, contended that Willard's lack of intent and the unforeseen nature of the incident should be taken into account when determining the appropriate charge.

The court had to navigate through the intricacies of criminal liability, specifically the mens rea and actus reus elements required for a murder conviction. The central question was whether Willard's actions were voluntary and whether he had the requisite intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. The court examined the evidence regarding Willard's state of mind and the circumstances leading to the death. It also considered the legal principles surrounding the concept of recklessness and whether Willard's actions could be classified as such.

In its decision, the court found that Willard's actions were indeed voluntary and that he had the requisite intent to cause harm. The court held that Willard's lack of foresight regarding the lethal outcome did not absolve him of responsibility for murder. The court emphasised that recklessness, defined as a conscious disregard for the risk of causing death or serious injury, was sufficient to establish the necessary mens rea for murder. Consequently, the court upheld the murder charge against Willard, rejecting his defence of accidental death.

The High Court's ruling in this case underscores the importance of intent and recklessness in determining criminal liability for murder. Willard's conviction was based on the principle that a person who consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their actions will cause death or serious injury can be held criminally liable for murder, even if the outcome was unintended. The final orders of the court confirmed Willard's conviction for murder, with the court providing detailed reasoning on the legal principles and evidence that led to this decision.

Orders