R v Williams

Case [2018] SASCFC 14

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Criminal Appeal)

R v WILLIAMS

[2018] SASCFC 14

Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal

(The Honourable Justice Blue, The Honourable Justice Stanley and The Honourable Justice Hinton)

1 March 2018

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE  - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - OTHER MATTERS

Application for an extension of time in which to apply for permission to appeal against sentence and for permission to appeal against sentence, permission having been refused by a single Judge.

On 3 March 2016, after pleading guilty to the offences of aggravated robbery, robbery, and breach of bail, the applicant was sentenced for those offences to a total period of imprisonment of six years and four months. A non-parole period of 12 months was fixed. The sentences, including the non-parole period, were ordered to commence on 20 May 2015.

On appeal, the appellant submitted that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and, in any event, should have been suspended because the sentence did not properly reflect his culpability. The appellant submitted that his sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the fact that he was a person of diminished responsibility, his age, that he was self-medicating in response to being abused as a child, that he had been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, that he had a relatively minor offending history, that he had pleaded guilty to all counts at an early stage, and that he had been cooperative with the police in relation to the investigation and prosecution of his own abuser.

Held by Hinton J (Blue and Stanley JJ agreeing):

1.  Extension of time in which to apply for permission to appeal granted.

2.  Permission to appeal granted.

3. Appeal dismissed.

Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988, referred to.
The Queen v McGaffin (2010) 206 A Crim R 188 ; Director of Public Prosecutions v Lawrence (2004) 10 VR 125; R v Pham (1991) 55 A Crim R 128; The Queen v Sewell and Walsh (1981) 29 SASR 12; Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629; R v Hronopolous [2017] SASCFC 143; Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 ; The Queen v Robinson (1990) 169 CLR 525; Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525, applied.
Hasan v R (2010) 31 VR 28, not followed.

R v WILLIAMS
[2018] SASCFC 14

Court of Criminal Appeal: Blue, Stanley and Hinton JJ

BLUE J:  

  1. I agree with Hinton J.

    STANLEY J:

  2. I agree with the reasons of Hinton J and the orders he proposes.

    HINTON J:

    Introduction

  3. This is an application to the Full Court for an extension of time in which to apply for permission to appeal against sentence and for permission to appeal against sentence, permission having been refused by a single Judge.

  4. On…

Continue reading R v Williams

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Williams [2018] SASCFC 14
Case
[2018] SASCFC 14
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal against sentence brought by Mr Williams before the Court of Criminal Appeal, constituted by Blue, Stanley and Hinton JJ. The appeal arose from Mr Williams' conviction for serious offending, including robbery and the cutting of a home detention bracelet, which occurred in the context of polysubstance abuse.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of Mr Williams' personal circumstances, including a diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) stemming from childhood sexual abuse and his ongoing struggles with addiction. The Court was required to consider whether the sentencing judge erred in concluding that the seriousness of the offending, the commission of a further offence while on bail, and the need for general deterrence outweighed Mr Williams' personal circumstances and prospects of rehabilitation, thereby justifying the imposition of a non-suspended term of imprisonment.

The Court, in its reasoning, acknowledged the seriousness of the offending and the importance of general deterrence. It referred to established principles from cases such as *Dinsdale v The Queen* and *Hili v The Queen*, which outline that manifest excess or inadequacy of sentence is a conclusion reached after considering all relevant matters, including the circumstances of the offending and the personal circumstances of the offender. The Court found that the sentencing judge's assessment of the seriousness of the offending was sound and that the factors of general deterrence and the community's need to suppress social evils were appropriately weighed. While acknowledging the applicant's personal circumstances, the Court concluded that these did not outweigh the gravity of the offences to the extent that the sentencing judge was plainly wrong in refusing to suspend the sentence.

Ultimately, the Court granted an extension of time to apply for permission to appeal, finding it reasonably arguable that the relationship between the total period of imprisonment and the non-parole period suggested manifest excess. However, the appeal itself was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I agree with the sentencing Judge’s assessment of the seriousness of the offending. In my view, it cannot be said that in concluding that offending of such seriousness and the fact that the second robbery was committed whilst the applicant was on bail for the aggravated robbery some four months later, coupled with the importance of general deterrence, albeit somewhat tempered, are outweighed by the applicant’s personal circumstances and prospects of rehabilitation. The “community’s need and also its duty to suppress an active social evil” that is prevalent and the serious consequences to the community of the commission of offending of this type warrants that the sentence of imprisonment be served. In my view the sentencing Judge cannot be said to be plainly wrong in concluding that good reason to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed did not exist. Conclusion I would grant an extension of time in which to apply for permission to appeal, the point having not been strongly opposed by the Director. In my view permission to appeal should be granted on the basis that it is reasonably arguable that the relationship between the total period of imprisonment imposed and the non-parole period suggests that the total period of imprisonment was manifestly excessive. I would, however, dismiss the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

In her report Dr Lim states:It is my opinion that Mr Williams continues to meet the diagnostic criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at the present time, which is directly linked to his experiences of a sexual assault perpetrated by a close family member when he was 11 years old. Reportedly, he did not divulge the abuse or seek professional assistance in the aftermath of the incident. It would appear that Mr Williams had initially attempted to actively suppress his memories of the assault by pretending it did not occur, but when that did not work he turned to alcohol and cannabis as a teenager, as an avoidant strategy, to cope with his intrusive memories instead. Over time, he likely developed a physiological tolerance to those substances, which resulted in his need to use a wider variety of drugs of increasingly higher potency, mostly from alcohol as well as the benzodiazepines and opiate classes of medications, to continue to manage his psychological distress and trauma memories in a maladaptive manner.It is in this context of Polysubstance Abuse/Dependence that Mr Williams’ current series of offending behaviours had occurred. He was clearly significantly under the influence of alcohol when he cut his Home Detention bracelet off. Furthermore, despite his minimal recollection of the robberies, it was likely that Mr Williams had been seeking funds to purchase more alcohol and benzodiazepines at the time of those offences. It is considered that his state of intoxication on a “cocktail of drugs and alcohol” would therefore, have impacted on his judgement, his ability to consider the consequences of his actions, and to regulate his behaviours appropriately.Consideration In Dinsdale v The Queen Gleeson CJ and Hayne J said:[2]Manifest inadequacy of sentence, like manifest excess, is a conclusion. A sentence is, or is not, unreasonable or plainly unjust; inadequacy or excess is, or is not, plainly apparent. It is a conclusion which does not depend upon attribution of identified specific error in the reasoning of the sentencing judge and which frequently does not admit of amplification except by stating the respect in which the sentence is inadequate or excessive. It may be inadequate or excessive because the wrong type of sentence has been imposed (for example, custodial rather than non-custodial) or because the sentence imposed is manifestly too long or too short. But to identify the type of error amounts to no more than a statement of the conclusion that has been reached. It is not a statement of reasons for arriving at the conclusion. A Court of Criminal Appeal is not obliged to employ any particular verbal formula so long as the substance of its conclusions and its reasons is made plain. The degree of elaboration that is appropriate or possible will vary from case to case.[2] (2000) 202 CLR 321 at [6]; See also, Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 at [59] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ). In Hili v The Queen French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ said:[3]... what reveals manifest excess, or inadequacy, of sentence is consideration of all of the matters that are relevant to fixing the sentence. The references made by the Court of Criminal Appeal to the circumstances of the offending and the personal circumstances of each offender were, therefore, important elements in the reasons of the Court of Criminal Appeal.[3] (2010) 242 CLR 520 at [60].