JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Wangaratta
DATE OF HEARING:	28 February 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 May 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Williams
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 280

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Murder — Reckless murder — Standard sentence offence — Plea of guilty — Accused stabbed de‑facto partner in abdomen and chest three times — Mid‑range of seriousness — Remorse — Offending objectively very serious — Complex diagnosis, involving an acquired brain injury, borderline personality disorder, anxiety, depression, Meniere’s disease — Verdins — Issues with lack of expert evidence, causal connection, realistic connection as to whether impairment played a role in offending conduct — Prospects of rehabilitation guarded — Extensive criminal history — Sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of 18 years — Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5, 5A, 5B, 6AAA, 11A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	J Johnston	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	D Price C Williams	Geoff Clancy

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Ricky John Williams, on 22 November 2022, you pleaded guilty to the reckless murder of Carmen Niklaus, at Everton Caravan Park on 6 December 2021.

The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is life imprisonment. It is a Category 1 offence and a standard sentence offence.

Background

In 2021, you were living in Wangaratta and receiving housing assistance through the Salvation Army Outreach Service. You had a housing assistance worker and, in late 2021, she had arranged accommodation for you at the Everton Caravan Park.

At the time of her death, Ms Niklaus was also living in Wangaratta, although she was homeless. Ms Niklaus was in an on‑again‑off‑again relationship with another man. Ms Niklaus and you had previously been in a de‑facto relationship, but in 2021 you were not living together.

In January 2021, the Wangaratta Magistrates’ Court made orders for the protection of Ms Niklaus, which prohibited you from contacting her in any way. Despite the orders, you were in contact with Ms Niklaus by telephone, and from time to time she would visit you at your home to obtain assistance with accommodation or food.

Circumstances of the offending

On 6 October 2021, you moved into the Everton Caravan Park on a six‑week booking that was due to expire on 17 November 2021. This accommodation was provided to you via a rental assistance package. You did not wish to go to the caravan park for two reasons, namely you did not wish to be seen there by Ms Niklaus, who had stayed there in the past, and you did not want your son to know you were living in a caravan park. Your housing assistance worker had contacted the caravan park on several occasions on your behalf to have the booking extended.

As at 6 December 2021, the booking at the caravan park was due to…

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 [2023] VSC 280
Case: [2023] VSC 280
Decision Date: 19 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Williams, was convicted of murder by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The victim, his de-facto partner, was stabbed three times in the abdomen and chest, leading to her death. Williams entered a guilty plea to the charge of murder, but argued that his offending was reckless rather than intentional, and that his mental health conditions mitigated the severity of his actions. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering both the nature of the offence and the mitigating factors presented by the appellant.

The primary legal issues for the court to address were the seriousness of the offence, the mitigating factors provided by the appellant, and the appropriate sentence in light of the evidence and legal principles. The court considered whether the murder was of mid-range seriousness, the extent to which Williams' mental health issues contributed to his offending conduct, and the prospects for his rehabilitation. The court also had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the mitigating factors presented.

The court found that the murder was of mid-range seriousness, taking into account the brutal nature of the attack and the appellant's guilty plea. However, it also acknowledged the complexity of his mental health issues, which included an acquired brain injury, borderline personality disorder, anxiety, depression, and Meniere’s disease. Despite the appellant's remorse, the court concluded that the offending was objectively very serious. The prospects of rehabilitation were considered guarded due to the appellant's extensive criminal history. Ultimately, the court sentenced Williams to 24 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders of the court included the sentence of 24 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years, reflecting the considerations of the court regarding the seriousness of the offence, the mitigating factors, and the need for punishment and deterrence.

Orders