Legal Research
Cases
R v Williams

R v Williams

Case [2025] NSWCCA 63 2 May 2025

Sentencing

Manifestly Inadequate Sentence

Appeal

Re-sentencing

Plea of Guilty

Discount for Pleas of Guilty

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Williams [2025] NSWCCA 63
Hearing dates: 17 March 2025
Date of orders: 2 May 2025
Decision date: 02 May 2025
Before: Davies J at [1]
Wright J at [2]
Dhanji J at [3]
Decision:
(1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The aggregate sentence imposed on the respondent by English DCJ on 15 November 2024 is quashed and in lieu thereof the respondent is resentenced as follows:
(a) In relation to sequences 9, 10, 11, 13 and 19 and having regard to the offences on the schedules attached to sequences 10, 11 and 13 in accordance with s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), an aggregate sentence is imposed. The respondent is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 years with a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 7 February 2023. The non-parole period will expire on 6 February 2027, and the head sentence will expire on 6 February 2031.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – Crown appeal against sentence – federal offences of procuring or attempting to procure persons believed to be children to engage in sexual activity outside of Australia – federal offences of persistent sexual abuse of children outside of Australia – State offence of failing to comply with reporting obligations – guilty pleas – aggregate sentence less than 50 percent of mandatory minimum sentences – nominated indicative sentence less than 75 percent of mandatory minimum sentence for sequence 9 – manifest inadequacy – where respondent conceded all grounds of appeal were established – appeal allowed – resentence
SENTENCING – resentence – where it appeared that the persons the subject of the offences were not in fact children – where the Director conceded that it could not be proved they were in fact children – where the concession was wrongly made with respect to certain sequences – respondent’s plea of guilty to some offences not admission of fact with respect to other offences – the Court should do no more than to act on the pleas – offences all objectively serious – offences committed remotely – respondent’s advanced age and health – aggregate sentence imposed pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – discount for pleas of guilty – equal justice

Legislation Cited:
Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW)
Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), ss 16C, 17(1)
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 5A(1)(a)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 91H(2)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 16AAA, 16AAB, 16AAC, 16BA, 19, 19B, 20(1)(a)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 25D, 53A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5D, 12(2)
Criminal Code (Cth), ss 272.8, 272.9, 272.11(1), 272.14(1), 272.15A(1)

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1 of 2002) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518
Bugmyv The Queen

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 [2025] NSWCCA 63
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 63
Decision Date: 02 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williams, the respondent pleaded guilty to a number of federal offences, including procuring or attempting to procure persons believed to be children to engage in sexual activity outside of Australia, persistent sexual abuse of children outside of Australia, and a State offence of failing to comply with reporting obligations. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, given that it was less than 50 percent of the mandatory minimum sentences for the federal offences and less than 75 percent of the mandatory minimum sentence for the sequence of offences. The court had to consider whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the seriousness of the offences, the respondent's advanced age and health, and the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions conceded that it could not be proved that the persons the subject of the offences were in fact children.

The court found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and allowed the appeal. The court noted that the Director had wrongly conceded that it could not be proved that the persons were in fact children with respect to certain sequences. The court also found that the respondent's plea of guilty to some offences did not constitute an admission of fact with respect to other offences. The court emphasised that it should not do more than to act on the pleas. The court held that the offences were all objectively serious, and while they were committed remotely, this did not diminish their seriousness. The court took into account the respondent's advanced age and health but found that these factors did not warrant a significant reduction in sentence. The court resentenced the respondent, imposing a sentence that was still less than the mandatory minimum sentences but was no longer manifestly inadequate.

The court made orders for the respondent to be resentenced and for the sentence to be served concurrently. The court also made orders for the respondent to be subject to supervision and other conditions.

Orders