R v Williams

[2001] VSCA 191

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No.15 of 2000

THE QUEEN	Respondent
v.
BENJAMIN RICHARD WILLIAMS	Appellant/Applicant

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, CALLAWAY and BUCHANAN, J.A.
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 October 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 October 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 191

---

Criminal law – Murder – Invasion of deceased’s home by three masked men intending to steal – Resistance by deceased – Whether self-defence by accused should have been left to jury – No error in judge’s refusal.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C.G. Hillman	Solicitor for Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr P.F. Tehan Q.C.	pro bono

PHILLIPS, J.A. (speaking for the Court):

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction by Benjamin Richard Williams who was one of three co-accused presented in the Trial Division for the murder of Edward John Melville Wilson on 27 February 1999.

1. The three accused had invaded the deceased's house and the deceased had produced a gun.  There were struggles and the deceased lashed out with a gun hitting at some stage, it seems, both the applicant and the co-accused Egan.  Subsequently the applicant went to the kitchen, got a knife and returned and stabbed the deceased three times in the back.

1. At the trial a submission was made that the judge should leave self-defence to the jury.  The judge ruled against that submission.  It is now claimed that the judge erred in so ruling.

1. I should say that in what was said to the judge, as indeed what was put to us on this application, no distinction was drawn between the defence of the applicant himself and the defence of Egan.  And so, like his Honour, we say nothing of it.

1. We have listened very carefully to Mr Tehan's submissions on behalf of the applicant, but we detect no error in the ruling made by his Honour, having regard to the material to which we have been referred and to the way in which the case was argued below.  Nor has anything counsel has said to us in this Court persuaded us that appellate intervention is warranted.

1. The Order of the Court is that the application is dismissed.

---