R v Williams - [2007] VSC 131

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1478 of 2004

THE QUEEN

CARL ANTHONY WILLIAMS

MEDIA COPY ---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 April, 30 April 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE	7 May 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Williams
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 131

---

Murders (3) – Conspiracy to Murder (1) – Execution style – “Gangland War”- Counsellor and Procurer – Mitigation : Plea of Guilty – Circumstances of imprisonment – Sentence: life imprisonment – Imposition of minimum term.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Horgan SC	Angela Cannon Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Ross Q.C. with Ms S. Cure	Lethbridges Solicitors

HER HONOUR:

Carl Williams, you have pleaded guilty to three counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to murder.

The maximum penalty for each of those offences is life imprisonment.

The murders to which you have pleaded guilty are, first, the murder of Jason Moran which occurred on 21 June 2003, second, the murder of Mark Mallia which occurred on 18 August 2003, third, the murder of Lewis Moran which occurred on 31 March 2004 and finally a conspiracy to murder Mario Condello which occurred between 29 May and 9 June 2004.

The Crown opened the circumstances under which they say these crimes were committed, you elected to give evidence before me during which you disputed a number of those circumstances to which the Crown had referred. You were cross examined by Mr Horgan S.C. on behalf of the Crown as to some of those matters.

In relation to the task of fact finding, it is my view that it not relevant to the sentence that I have to impose that I determine all of the issues that have been raised by you as being disputed. There are certain matters which are necessary to determine but also many that are clearly not relevant and will have no impact upon the sentence that I will impose.

I will refer to the objective facts that are not disputed in any way when I am referring to the circumstances of the murders and conspiracy. Any areas in which the matters are contested by you, and may have relevance to the sentence to be imposed, I will indicate and deal with specifically as I state those circumstances.

There are a number of matters to which the prosecutor referred which are part of the background material, but which do not particularly impact upon your sentence but do place the three murders and conspiracy to murder, to which you have pleaded guilty, in context. Accordingly, I will include some of those matters that I consider will be of assistance in comprehending the whole of the circumstances.

These offences occurred during an extraordinary time in the history of this city, in that there was an almost unprecedented level of very public murders of known or suspected criminals. This was…

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 [2007] VSC 131
Case: [2007] VSC 131
Decision Date: 7 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Williams, the respondent faced charges relating to multiple homicides and conspiracy to commit murder. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the sentences imposed on the respondent by the lower courts. The respondent had been found guilty of three murders and one count of conspiracy to murder, which occurred during what was described as a "gangland war." The respondent entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term specified by the trial judge.

The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate sentencing for the crimes committed, particularly in the context of the "gangland war" and the respondent's role as both a counsellor and procurer in the murders. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge correctly assessed the gravity of the crimes and whether the imposed sentence, including the minimum term, was commensurate with the nature and circumstances of the offences. Additionally, the court needed to consider the respondent's plea of guilty and the potential for mitigation in the sentencing process.

The High Court, in its decision, affirmed the trial judge's assessment of the gravity of the crimes and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The court found that the trial judge had correctly considered the respondent's role in the "gangland war" and had appropriately balanced the factors in favour of and against imposing a minimum term of imprisonment. The court noted that the crimes were of a particularly heinous nature, involving execution-style killings, and that the respondent's role as both a counsellor and procurer warranted a severe penalty. The High Court concluded that the sentence of life imprisonment, with the specified minimum term, was just and appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The court's final orders upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge, confirming the life imprisonment term with the specified minimum period before the possibility of parole. The court did not alter the sentence, finding that the trial judge had exercised sound judicial discretion in determining the appropriate penalty for the respondent's crimes.

Orders