R v Williams - [2004] VSC 429

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1434 of 2004

THE QUEEN

WILLIAMS

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	22 October 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 October 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Roberta Williams
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 429

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Plea of guilty to trafficking in drugs in a commercial quantity – Substantial quantity of MDMA and methylamphetamine sold as “Ecstasy” tablets – Plea of guilty - Issue of hardship upon family of prisoner - Whether exceptional circumstances.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr W.H. Morgan-Payler Q.C.	Solicitor to the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C. Heliotis Q.C. with Mr S. Grant

HIS HONOUR:

You, Roberta Williams, have pleaded guilty before me to one count of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence. The maximum penalty applicable at the time of your offence pursuant to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 is 25 years’ imprisonment. This crime arises out of circumstances which took place on 19 May 2001. By way of background to the events which led to your becoming involved in the events of 19 May 2001, your husband, Carl Williams, and Walter Foletti, became engaged in drug transactions during April and May of 2001 with an undercover police officer. Foletti throughout that period sold drugs supplied by your husband, Carl Williams, to an undercover police officer.

There is no allegation that you were in any way involved in these matters until the last of the transactions which occurred on 19 May 2001. That day, Foletti telephoned you at home. He spoke to you and asked if your husband was “organising that thing for me”. He said to you “The bloke is going to ring me up after twelve”. A short time later that morning, the undercover police officer arranged to meet Foletti and to purchase 8,000 ecstasy tablets from him for the sum of $100,000. Shortly before 2.00 pm that day, Foletti telephoned you. You asked him whether he was coming to your home, and he said that he would be coming past. Approximately an hour later the undercover officer purchased 8,000 ecstasy tablets from Foletti at the McDonalds car park in Sydenham. He provided Foletti with $100,000 cash in a shoe box. At approximately the same time you received a telephone call from your husband, Carl Williams. Soon thereafter Walter Foletti telephoned you and told you that he would call you “as soon as I do this”. In the course of a subsequent phone call you asked Foletti to “bring what you’ve got now because he said you can bring it”. He said “If you want to come past, better”. Immediately following that phone call you drove your BMW motor car from your home to Foletti’s house which was nearby. You entered Foletti’s house. Only minutes later you left Foletti’s house carrying a blue shopping bag. Several…

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 [2004] VSC 429
Case: [2004] VSC 429
Decision Date: 29 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams involved the defendant who pleaded guilty to trafficking in drugs in a commercial quantity. The defendant had sold a substantial amount of MDMA and methylamphetamine disguised as “Ecstasy” tablets. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature and quantity of the drugs involved and the impact on the community.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the plea of guilty, the nature of the offence, and the potential hardship on the defendant’s family. The court had to weigh these factors against the need to deter such criminal activities and to ensure justice was served. The defendant's legal representation argued that the defendant's family would suffer significant hardship if he were to be incarcerated, which they considered to be exceptional circumstances warranting a reduced sentence.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the gravity of the offence, the quantity of drugs involved, and the impact of the defendant's actions on the community. While acknowledging the potential hardship on the defendant's family, the court found that this alone did not constitute exceptional circumstances sufficient to warrant a departure from the usual sentencing principles. The court ultimately determined that the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter such activities outweighed the personal hardship factors. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the offence and the need to uphold the law.

The court's final orders included the imposition of a custodial sentence on the defendant, with specific details regarding the length of imprisonment and any additional penalties or conditions. The court also directed that appropriate support services be made available to the defendant's family to mitigate the impact of the sentence.

Orders