Legal Research
Cases
R v Williams

R v Williams

Case [2011] NSWSC 583 17 June 2011

Objectively Serious Offence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ryan Christopher WILLIAMS [2011] NSWSC 583
Hearing dates: 20 May 2011
Decision date: 17 June 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years, 3 months and 23 days, commencing on 24 September 2009 and expiring on 15 January 2026.
The balance of term of 5 years, 5 months and 8 days, is to commence on 16 January 2026 and will expire on 23 June 2031.
The offender will be eligible for release on parole on 16 January 2026.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - plea of guilty - objectively serious offence - aggravating factors - mitigating factors - no prior criminal record - 25% utilitarian discount - early plea - offence above mid-range - provocation not established
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Alvares v R; Farache v R [2011] NSWCCA 33
Aoun v R [2007] NSWCCA 292
MLP v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 271; (2006) 164 A Crim R 93
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
Nguyen v The Queen; ATCN v The Queen; Nguyen v The Queen; Huynh v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 363; (2007) 180 A Crim R 267
Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; (1974) 131 CLR 623
R v AJP [2004] NSWCCA 434; (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
R v AZ [2011] NSWCCA 43
R v Borg [2010] NSWSC 951
R v Day [2010] NSWSC 983
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Fletcher-Jones (1994) 75 A Crim R 381
R v Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459
R v Kwon (2010) NSWSC 67
R v McEvoy [2010] NSWCCA 110
R v Mendez [2002] NSWCCA 415
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Cim R 76
Regina v Prior [2002] NSWSC 56
R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA 152
R v Shepherd [2007] NSWSC 1416
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Tzanis [2005] NSWCCA 274
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Shaw v R [2008] NSWCCA 58
SZ v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 19; (2007) 168 A Crim R 249
Versluys v R [2008] NSWCCA 76
XY v R [2007] NSWCCA 72
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ryan Christopher Williams (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr P Barnett SC (Crown)
Mr P Young SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2009/213264

Judgment

The offender, Ryan Christopher Williams stands for sentence in relation to the murder of Shana Joy Wilkinson at Corowa on 18 September 2009. He pleaded guilty to the charge in the Local Court in 2010 and adhered to that plea when he first appeared in this Court and when the matter came on for hearing in May 2011.

The maximum penalty for the crime of murder is life imprisonment. The…

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 Williams

Details

AGLC: R v Williams [2011] NSWSC 583
Case: [2011] NSWSC 583
Decision Date: 17 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williams, the defendant was convicted of murder and pleaded guilty. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the offence, taking into account various aggravating and mitigating factors. The Crown argued that the offence was objectively serious and, in light of the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record, warranted a sentence above the mid-range. The defendant's legal team sought a sentence below the mid-range, arguing that certain mitigating factors were present, including an early plea and the absence of established provocation.

The court considered the statutory guidelines for sentencing, focusing on the seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the principles of deterrence and retribution. The court acknowledged that the offence was indeed objectively serious, and that the defendant's lack of a criminal history was not sufficient to warrant a lower sentence. The court found that the defendant's early plea and acceptance of responsibility were mitigating factors, but that the absence of established provocation did not significantly reduce the seriousness of the offence. The court also applied a 25% utilitarian discount to the sentence, reflecting the defendant's early guilty plea.

After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the defendant was above the mid-range, but still within the bounds of proportionality and justice. The court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the need for both punishment and rehabilitation. The exact term of imprisonment was not specified in the text.

Orders