R v Williams Summary | CaseChat AU

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):

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the prosecution of Williams on a charge of murder. Williams was one of three men who had entered the home of the deceased with the intent to steal. The deceased resisted, and in the ensuing confrontation, he was fatally wounded. The central issue in this case was whether the trial judge erred in not leaving the question of self-defence to the jury’s consideration. Williams argued that he acted in self-defence when he caused the fatal injury to the deceased. The court was tasked with examining whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant a self-defence instruction to the jury.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the confrontation and the evidence presented regarding the state of mind of the accused at the time of the incident. The evidence suggested that Williams and his accomplices had the intent to commit a crime, which was a relevant factor in determining the applicability of self-defence. The court noted that the presence of a weapon and the nature of the confrontation indicated a situation where self-defence might reasonably be considered by an ordinary person in the position of the accused. However, the court found that the evidence did not establish that the accused genuinely believed that he was in imminent danger requiring the use of deadly force. The court concluded that there was no basis for the jury to consider self-defence as a defence in this case.

The court upheld the trial judge’s decision not to leave the issue of self-defence to the jury, finding no error in this decision. The evidence did not support a reasonable belief in the necessity of using deadly force by the accused. Consequently, the conviction for murder was affirmed. The court's decision was grounded in the lack of evidence to support a genuine belief in the necessity of self-defence on the part of the accused.

R v Williams

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established