Legal Research
Cases
R v Williams

R v Williams

Case [2004] NSWCCA 246 29 July 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
148 A Crim R 325

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v S B Williams [2004] NSWCCA 246

HEARING DATE(S): 18/06/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 July 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Bryson JA at 1; James J at 6; Kirby J at 7

DECISION: By majority:; 1. Leave to appeal granted; 2. Appeal allowed; 3. In respect of count 1 of the first indictment (the malicious wounding with intent) the sentence be quashed and in lieu thereof the applicant be sentenced to 6 years imprisonment to date from 16.10.02 and expire on 15.10.08, with a non parole period of 3 years and 2 months to date from 16.10.02 and expire on 15.12.05; 4. In respect of counts 1 and 2 of the second indictment (the gaol assaults) the concurrent terms of imprisonment of 9 months should in each case be varied so as to commence on 16.05.05 and expire on 15.02.06.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Practice & Procedure - malicious wounding with intent - whether sentence excessive - whether sentences on other counts inadequate - or should have been accumulation (gaol assaults) s7(1A) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - whether power to adjust sentences not the subject of appeal.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Fernando (No 2) [2002] NSWCCA 28
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Hayes [2001] NSWCCA 358
R v Shepherd [2003] NSWCCA 351
R v Goundar (2001) 127 A Crim R 331
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v Salameh (CCA (NSW), 9.6.94, unreported)
R v Trevenna [2004] NSWCCA 43
Veen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465
R v Itamua [2000] NSWCCA 502

PARTIES :
Regina
Steven Brian Williams

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60293/03

COUNSEL: G Rowling (Crown)
A Haesler (Appl)

SOLICITORS: C K Smith (Crown)
V Havryliv (Appl)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/61/0151; 02/61/0152

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Finnane DCJ

60293/03

BRYSON JA
JAMES J
KIRBY J
Thursday 29 July 2004

REGINA v Steven Brian WILLIAMS

Judgment

1 BRYSON JA: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment of Kirby J. In my respectful view the sentence imposed on the applicant by Finnane DCJ on Count 1 (maliciously wound with intent to do grievous bodily harm) was well within the range of sentences which his Honour could decide upon in the exercise of sound discretion. Nothing said by Finnane DCJ appears to me to reveal any error of principle or of fact, and the conclusion overall about what sentence and non-parole period were appropriate does not appear to me to indicate that any unexpressed error has had any influence. In particular, the starting point of his Honour’s consideration of ten years does not appear to me to be in any way excessive.

2 It is indeed fortunate that the wound inflicted on Mr Bellos…

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 [2004] NSWCCA 246
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 246
Decision Date: 29 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williams, the appellant was convicted of several criminal offences including malicious wounding with intent and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The case was heard and determined in the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria. The appellant challenged the severity of the sentences imposed, arguing that they were excessive and that the sentences for the other counts should have been cumulative rather than concurrent. The appellant also questioned whether the Court had the authority to adjust the sentences under section 7(1A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

The legal issues before the court were multifaceted. The court had to determine whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were excessive, whether the sentences for different offences should have been ordered to run cumulatively rather than concurrently, and whether the Court had the power to adjust the sentences under the relevant statutory provision. The court needed to carefully weigh the appellant's arguments against the trial judge's assessment of the appropriate sentences, balancing the principles of sentencing with the statutory framework governing criminal appeals.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the trial judge's reasoning in imposing the sentences. It concluded that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors and that the sentences were within the appropriate range for the offences committed. The court held that there was no basis to find the sentences excessive and that the trial judge's decision to order concurrent sentences was justified. Regarding the power to adjust sentences, the court found that section 7(1A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 did not grant the Court the authority to alter the sentences imposed by the trial judge. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant's appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentences imposed by the trial judge were upheld. The court's decision affirmed the trial judge's discretion in sentencing and the limits of the appellate court's powers under the statutory framework.

Orders