R v Williams

Case [2021] NSWDC 133


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Williams [2021] NSWDC 133
Hearing dates: 31 March 2021
Date of orders: 31 March 2021
Decision date: 31 March 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph 23

Catchwords:

Criminal law – domestic violence – blight on civil society – no man should strike a woman – abuse of relationship – obligation of the state to vindicate the dignity of the victim – community disapproval – protection of the vulnerable against violence – denunciation of domestic violence – repeat domestic violence offender – protection of the individual and the community.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act1900

Crimes (Personal and Domestic Violence) Act 2007

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

R v Hamid (2006) 164 ACR 179

R v Edigarov (2001) 125 A Crim R 551

In Patsan v R [2018] NSWCCA 129

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Kenneth Ray Williams (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Cassels (Offender)
Solicitors:
Ms Dawson (DPP)
Ms Howell (Legal Aid)
File Number(s): 2020/00065195

Ex tempore Judgment

INTRODUCTION

  1. HIS HONOUR: Kenneth Ray Williams is to be sentenced for two offences, namely aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence (assault occasioning actual bodily harm) contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act1900. The maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment. There is a standard non‑parole period of five years. The second charge is reckless wounding contrary to s 35(4) of the Crimes Act.  The maximum penalty is seven years.  It has a standard non‑parole period of three years.  The maximum penalties and standard non‑parole periods are an important guide in the assessment of sentence.

  2. There is a s 166 matter, contravene prohibition or restriction in an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order contrary to s 14(1) of the Crimes (Personal and Domestic Violence) Act 2007. Pursuant to s 168(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act the Court is to proceed to sentence on related offences as if the offender was being dealt with in the Local Court.  The Court is subject to the restrictions on sentence imposed in that Court.  The maximum penalties are imprisonment for two years and/or a fine of $5,500.

DISCOUNT FOR PLEA

  1. The offender entered pleas of guilty at the first available opportunity and the Crown concedes that the discount should be 25%.

STATUTORY AGGRAVATING FACTORS

  1. Sequence 1:  The offence involved the threat and use of violence.  Immediately prior to forcing opening the door he said, "Open the fucking door or I'll smash the window", it is a statutory aggravating factor pursuant to s 21A(2)(b).

  2. Sequence 5:  The offence involved the use of a weapon.  The offender hit her with a torch.  The offence was committed in the home of the victim.  This is a statutory aggravating factor pursuant to s 21A(2)(b).  The offence involved the use of a weapon, it a statutory aggravating factor pursuant to s 21A(2)(c).  The victim was staying at the Fountain Court Motor Inn after she sought assistance to obtain emergency housing.  It was her home.

Continue reading R v Williams

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Williams [2021] NSWDC 133
Case
[2021] NSWDC 133
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams arose in the Supreme Court of the state, involving an individual charged with multiple counts of domestic violence against a female partner. The dispute centred around a series of violent incidents, including physical assault, psychological abuse, and coercive control over an extended period. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalties and considering the broader implications of domestic violence in society. The prosecution argued for a substantial sentence, emphasising the need to protect the victim and deter future offences. The defence, on the other hand, sought a lesser penalty, highlighting the defendant's background and potential for rehabilitation.

The legal issues the court had to decide included the severity of the offences, the appropriate punishment, and the need for the sentence to reflect community values and deterrence. The court had to balance the principles of retribution and rehabilitation, taking into account the repeated nature of the offences and the impact on the victim. The prosecution submitted that the defendant's actions constituted a serious breach of the peace and a violation of the victim's dignity, warranting a significant custodial sentence. The defence argued that the defendant, while acknowledging his wrongdoing, had shown remorse and had the potential to reform, thus deserving a more lenient sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the gravity of domestic violence and its detrimental effects on individuals and society. It held that the defendant's actions were a clear abuse of the relationship and a blight on civil society. The court emphasised that no man should strike a woman and that the state has an obligation to vindicate the dignity of the victim. The judge noted the community's strong disapproval of domestic violence and the need to protect vulnerable individuals against such violence. The court also stressed the importance of denunciation to prevent future occurrences. After considering the submissions from both parties, the court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need for community protection. The court's decision underscored the importance of addressing domestic violence with appropriate legal consequences.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 23

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.