R v Williams - [2005] NSWCCA 355

Reported Decision:
156 A Crim R 225

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION:
R v Stephen Barry Williams [2005] NSWCCA 355

HEARING DATE(S): 16 September 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

16 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Basten JA at 1, 50, 52; Simpson J at 2; Buddin J at 51

DECISION:
(1) grant leave to the applicant to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed on the applicant by the District Court on 16 September 2004, and; (2) re-sentence the applicant: (i) on each of the manufacture and supply prohibited drug charges, a non-parole period of three years and three months commencing 23 July 2003 and expiring 22 October 2006 with a balance of term of two years and nine months, the balance of term to expire on 22 July 2009; (ii) on the possess precursor charge, a fixed term of imprisonment for two years also to commence on 23 July 2003 and expire on 22 July 2005; (iii) on the possess prohibited weapon charge, a fixed term of imprisonment for eighteen months commencing 23 July 2003 and expiring on 22 January 2005; (iv) the earliest date eligible for release on parole is 22 October 2006.

CATCHWORDS:
appeal against sentence - manufacture prohibited drug - possession of precursor intended for the manufacture of a prohibited drug - supply prohibited drug - possess prohibited weapon - psychiatric disability - global sentence imposed for all offences - no attempt to identify appropriate sentence for each offence - breach of Pearce doctrine - additional offences taken into account - discount for plea of guilty - sentence manifestly excessive - applicant resentenced

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, Part 3 Division 3, s44
Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s6(3)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998, Schedule 1, s7(1)

CASES CITED:
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267)
R v Johnson [2005] NSWCCA 186
R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534

PARTIES:
Crown - Respondent
Stephen Barry Williams - Applicant

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/975

COUNSEL:
W Dawe QC - Crown
J Stratton SC - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh - Crown
SE O'Connor - Applicant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/21/0031

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Twigg DCJ

2005/975

BASTEN JA
SIMPSON J
BUDDIN J
Friday 16 September 2005

REGINA v Stephen Barry WILLIAMS

Judgment

1 BASTEN JA: I invite Simpson J to give the first judgment.

2 SIMPSON J: On 2 September 2000 the applicant pleaded guilty to four counts on an indictment containing five charges, the second of which was an alternative to the first. The Crown accepted his pleas of guilty in full satisfaction of the indictment. The offences, the dates on which they were committed and the statutory provisions under which the charges were brought, and the maximum penalty provided thereby, are set out in the table below.

Offences

Date of commission

Statutory…

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 [2005] NSWCCA 355
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 355
Decision Date: 16 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the criminal proceedings against Williams, the respondent, the appeal was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria. The respondent had been sentenced to imprisonment for a series of drug-related offences, including the manufacture of a prohibited drug, possession of a precursor intended for the manufacture of a prohibited drug, supply of a prohibited drug, possession of a prohibited weapon, and possession of a prohibited drug. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether the sentence contravened the principles set out in Pearce v The Queen. The court needed to determine if the sentence took into account the respondent's psychiatric disability, if the sentence was a global one that failed to address the appropriate punishment for each individual offence, and if the discount for the plea of guilty was adequate.

The court held that the sentence was manifestly excessive and breached the Pearce doctrine. The trial judge had failed to identify an appropriate sentence for each offence and instead imposed a global sentence that did not adequately reflect the nature and circumstances of the individual offences. Additionally, the court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the respondent's psychiatric disability, which should have resulted in a more lenient sentence. The court also noted that the discount for the plea of guilty was insufficient given the severity of the sentence. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the respondent was resentenced. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the Pearce doctrine and ensuring that the sentence imposed is proportionate to the individual offences committed, taking into account any mitigating factors.

Orders