R v Williams - [2019] NSWDC 804

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Williams [2019] NSWDC 804
Hearing dates: 10 October 2019
Decision date: 10 October 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of three years and eight months. Non-parole period of two years and two months.

Catchwords: SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentencing – a series of serious offences – totality – parity – life of considerable disadvantage – never lived a normal community life – need for staged release into the community.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application No. 1 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
Category: Sentence
Parties: Joshua Williams (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr D McCallum (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Morrisons Law (for the offender)
Ms N Olender, Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2018/00121569; 2018/00198434

Judgment- Ex Tempore Revised

Joshua Williams is still a young man. He was born in 1990. His youth was characterised by what a respected psychologist described as “dislocation and abandonment.” He spent much of his teen years either living by his wits on the street or in juvenile detention. He has spent much of his adult life going in and out of custody.
He has committed offences while in custody and his gaol record is not a good one. He was released after serving a number of sentences on 25 August 2017. He was not subject to parole or guidance by the Parole Service, but it appears at least initially he was able to establish himself in the community. However, a pattern of association with others of a similar criminal lifestyle soon re-emerged and in March and April 2018 he committed further offences.
He has been in custody since 17 April 2018. He stands for sentence today for five serious offences. He has always indicated acceptance of responsibility for those crimes, however to accommodate the provision of a count on an ex-officio indictment, an indictment was presented today and he confirmed his guilt in relation to all five matters. He will have the full benefit of his plea of guilty so far as its utilitarian value is concerned. That early guilty plea and another matter, to which I will refer shortly, gives me a small amount of confidence that he has matured and is willing to turn his back on the lifestyle which has blighted his life since he was a young boy.
There are five matters for sentence.

Offence 1 - Indictment count 4. The offence of accessory after the fact to break enter and steal at Kiama Downs on 13 March 2018; s 112(2) Crimes Act 1900, s 350 Crimes Act; maximum penalty five years.

Offence 2 - Indictment count 1: that the offence of 9 April aggravated break enter and steal of premises s 112(2) Crimes Act; maximum penalty 20 years for an offence which falls objectively in the…

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 [2019] NSWDC 804
Case: [2019] NSWDC 804
Decision Date: 10 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the sentencing of an individual named Williams, who had committed a series of serious offences. The nature of the dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed, considering the totality of the offences and the need for parity. The court was required to weigh the severity and frequency of the crimes against the offender's background and the potential for rehabilitation. The case was heard in the higher court, indicating the significance of the sentencing decisions.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate aggregate sentence and the non-parole period. The court had to consider the totality principle, which required an assessment of all the offences together rather than in isolation. The concept of parity was also relevant, ensuring that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crimes while considering any mitigating factors. Additionally, the court needed to contemplate the offender's background, which included a life of considerable disadvantage and a lack of integration into the community, and the potential for staged release into society.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that an aggregate sentence of three years and eight months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of two years and two months. The court acknowledged the serious nature of the offences but also considered the offender's background and the potential for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the need for staged release into the community, recognising that Williams had never lived a normal community life. The decision reflected a balanced approach, taking into account the totality of the offences, the need for parity, and the offender's circumstances.

ORDERS:
Aggregate sentence of three years and eight months. Non-parole period of two years and two months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of three years and eight months. Non-parole period of two years and two months.

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 [2019] NSWDC 804
Hearing dates:	10 October 2019
Decision date:	10 October 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of three years and eight months. Non-parole period of two years and two months.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentencing – a series of serious offences – totality – parity – life of considerable disadvantage – never lived a normal community life – need for staged release into the community.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application No. 1 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Joshua Williams (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr D McCallum (for the offender) Solicitors: Morrisons Law (for the offender) Ms N Olender, Director of Public Prosecutions
File Number(s):	2018/00121569; 2018/00198434