R v Williams - [2023] NSWDC 490

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Williams [2023] NSWDC 490
Hearing dates: 23, 24, 25 October 2023
Date of orders: 27 October 2023
Decision date: 27 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:
See paragraphs [308] – [309]

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – alleged historical sex offences in late 1970s and early 1980s – two complainants - serial incidents of alleged indecent assault - buggery - Crown reliance upon tendency evidence – lies as consciousness of guilt

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 3B
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 97, 97A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 16, 161A, 293A, 294
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Victims’ Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW), ss 35, 36, 39

Cases Cited:
Arizabaleta v R [2023] NSWCCA 217
DPP v Knight [2006] NSWSC 646
Haile v R [2022] NSWCCA 71
JJB v R [2006] NSWCCA 126
JS v R [2022] NSWCCA 145
Park v R [2023] NSWCCA 71
PWB v R [2011] NSWCCA 84
R v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56
Robinson v R (No.2) (1991) 180 CLR 531
Schoffel v R [2023] NSWCCA 88
W v R [2014] NSWCCA 110

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Karl Williams (accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr B Queenan for the Crown
Ms R Court for the accused
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Benjamin Leonardo – The Defenders (accused)

File Number(s): 2021/330971
Publication restriction: Non-publication of names of complainants and tendency witness

REASONS FOR VERDICTS

Introduction

Mr Karl Williams (the accused) is charged on indictment of the following offences:

Count 1

Between 8 March 1977 and 8 March 1978 at Swansea in the State of New South Wales, he did assault a female, namely KA, who was then under the age of 16 years, namely 8 years and, at the time of that assault, committed an act of indecency upon her contrary to s 76 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Count 2

Count 3

Between 8 March 1977 and 8 March 1979 at Swansea in the State of New South Wales, he did assault a female, namely KA, who was then under the age of 16 years, namely 8 or 9 years and, at the time of that assault, committed an act of indecency upon her contrary to s 76 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Count 4

Between 8 March 1979 and 8 March 1980 at Swansea in the State of New South Wales, he did assault a female, namely KA, who was then under the age of 16 years, namely 10 years and, at the time of that assault, committed…

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] NSWDC 490
Case: [2023] NSWDC 490
Decision Date: 27 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Regina versus Williams, the respondent faced charges involving alleged historical sexual offences from the late 1970s and early 1980s. Two complainants brought forward accusations of serial incidents of alleged indecent assault and buggery. The case was heard by the court without a jury, as per the request of the respondent, and dealt with the admissibility of tendency evidence to support the Crown's case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the tendency evidence, specifically the lies told by the respondent, could be admitted as consciousness of guilt. The respondent argued that the lies were not relevant to the propensity to commit the offences, and their admission would be unfair and prejudicial. The Crown contended that the lies were relevant and could be used to show consciousness of guilt.

The court found that the tendency evidence, particularly the lies, was relevant and admissible as it demonstrated the respondent's consciousness of guilt. The court considered the principles set out in previous cases, such as R v Spano, and determined that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have had. Consequently, the court ruled that the tendency evidence was admissible, and the respondent was found guilty of all charges. The court then proceeded to make orders regarding the respondent's sentencing, as outlined in paragraphs [308] to [309] of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs [308] – [309]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Williams [2023] NSWDC 490
Hearing dates:	23, 24, 25 October 2023
Date of orders:	27 October 2023
Decision date:	27 October 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Abadee DCJ
Decision:	See paragraphs [308] – [309]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – alleged historical sex offences in late 1970s and early 1980s – two complainants - serial incidents of alleged indecent assault - buggery - Crown reliance upon tendency evidence – lies as consciousness of guilt
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 3B Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 97, 97A Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 16, 161A, 293A, 294 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Victims’ Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW), ss 35, 36, 39
Cases Cited:	Arizabaleta v R [2023] NSWCCA 217 DPP v Knight [2006] NSWSC 646 Haile v R [2022] NSWCCA 71 JJB v R [2006] NSWCCA 126 JS v R [2022] NSWCCA 145 Park v R [2023] NSWCCA 71 PWB v R [2011] NSWCCA 84 R v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56 Robinson v R (No.2) (1991) 180 CLR 531 Schoffel v R [2023] NSWCCA 88 W v R [2014] NSWCCA 110
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Karl Williams (accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr B Queenan for the Crown Ms R Court for the accused Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Benjamin Leonardo – The Defenders (accused)
File Number(s):	2021/330971
Publication restriction:	Non-publication of names of complainants and tendency witness