R v Williams - [2000] VSC 20

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Not Restricted

No. 1470/99

THE QUEEN

BENJAMIN RICHARD WILLIAMS

---

JUDGE:	VINCENT, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF RULING:	7 DECEMBER 1999
DATE REASONS HANDED DOWN:	8 FEBRUARY 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 20

---

CATCHWORDS: Issue of self-defence withdrawn from jury's consideration – R. v. Kear [1997] 2 VR 555 – Deceased defending himself and his property against unlawful invasion – Whether actions of deceased were reasonable in the circumstances – Pemble v. The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107 – Zecevic v. DPP (Vic.) (1987) 162 CLR 695.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. G. Horgan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. S. Langslow	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Shortly prior to the closure of the prosecution case, a foreshadowed discussion took place with counsel concerning the question – whether in the circumstances the issue of self defence should be left for consideration by the jury.

It arose against the following broad evidentiary background which, I should add, was undisputed by the defence.

The deceased was present in his home at Wodonga on the evening of 27 February 1999 playing board and computer games with a male friend named Matthew White. At about 10.30 p.m. he responded to a knock on the front door where he was confronted by three male persons wearing stocking masks. The deceased was, the evidence indicates, a dealer in marijuana and the men who were aware of his activities, had decided to "do over" or raid the premises for the purpose of securing drugs and money which they understood would be kept there. Although there was no evidence on the matter, it would, I think, be reasonable to infer that they proposed to rely, in order to achieve their objective upon the intimidating effect of their appearance and their joint presence and, if necessary, overpower the deceased, as there was no evidence that any of the men was armed with a weapon of any kind. There was evidence that all had been drinking and may have been affected by alcohol. The accused was, it should be added, acquainted with the deceased who he said had chased him off the premises at gun point a week earlier.

According to the undisputed evidence of the deceased’s companion, on seeing the men, the deceased immediately closed the front door and peremptorily ordered the persons outside to leave.

However, they did not withdraw and moved to a nearby loungeroom window through which, after a covering fly screen was removed, all three entered the premises. The precise movements of those then present and the exact sequence of events could not be stated with the same degree of confidence as the background matters I have just set out and clearly were not the subject of any concession by the defence at the trial. Indeed, at the stage at which the discussion took place, it was possible, on the evidence, only to speculate about a deal of…

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 [2000] VSC 20
Case: [2000] VSC 20
Decision Date: 8 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williams, the appellant faced charges related to an incident that resulted in the death of a person. The deceased had intervened to protect his property from what he perceived to be an unlawful intrusion by the appellant. The matter was brought before the court to determine the legal implications of the deceased's actions and to establish whether the appellant's actions constituted a crime. The court was tasked with examining whether the deceased's use of force was reasonable under the circumstances and if the appellant's actions warranted criminal liability.

The legal issues at the core of this case revolved around the principles of self-defence and the proportionality of the force used. The court needed to decide whether the deceased's actions were justified in defending himself and his property against what he believed to be an unlawful invasion. The court also had to determine if the appellant's conduct warranted criminal charges, considering the deceased's actions in self-defence. The case hinged on the interpretation of relevant case law, including R. v. Kear and Pemble v. The Queen, as well as the applicability of these precedents to the specific facts of the case.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the incident and the actions of both the deceased and the appellant. It was determined that the deceased was defending his property and himself against what he reasonably perceived to be an unlawful intrusion. The court found that the deceased's use of force was proportionate to the threat he faced, and as such, his actions could be justified under the principles of self-defence. The court concluded that the appellant's actions did not constitute a criminal offence, as they were in response to the deceased's defensive actions. Consequently, the court dismissed the charges against the appellant, finding that the deceased's actions were reasonable and justified under the circumstances.

Orders