R v Williams - [2004] NSWCCA 18

CITATION: R v WILLIAMS [2004] NSWCCA 18

HEARING DATE(S): 9 February 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 February 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 28; James J at 29; Hulme J at 1

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed

PARTIES :
Regina
Appellant: Anthony Thomas Williams

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60008/04

COUNSEL: Crown: P Ingram
Appellant: P Byrne SC

SOLICITORS: Crown: S Kavanagh
Appellant: D Williams

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0203

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Karpin DCJ

- 7 -

60008/04

SULLY J
JAMES J
HULME J

Monday 9 February 2004

R v ANTHONY THOMAS WILLIAMS

Judgment

1 HULME J: This applicant for leave to appeal against sentence was deal with by Karpin DCJ on 11 December last in respect of a number of offences of dishonesty. In summary they were:-

First indictment

Second indictment

8. On 30 August 2001, with another offender, dishonestly obtaining 8 bottles of bourbon whiskey by deception by falsely pretending a credit card was a genuine and valid card and the co-offender the cardholder.

9. On 30 August 2001, by similar deception obtaining a computer printer and monitor.

2 In respect of the charges I have numbered 1 to 5 and 7, 9 and 10 the Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months with a non-parole period of 8 months. In respect of the charge I have numbered 6, the Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months with a non-parole period of 8 months. In respect of the charge I have numbered 8 he was placed on a good behaviour bond for 3 years.

3 The value of the property stolen was of the order of $18,000. The value of the property the subject of the charges against the applicant in a second indictment was of the order of $1200.

4 The period over which the offences in the first indictment occurred extended from 30 June 2001 to 9 August 2001. The offences subject of the charges in the second indictment and with which the applicant was concerned occurred on 30 August.

5 It is clear that, in effect, over a period…

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 18
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 18
Decision Date: 9 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williams, the appellant, Anthony Thomas Williams, sought leave to appeal against his sentence imposed by the District Court for various offences of dishonesty. The primary legal issues that arose from this appeal concerned the sentencing process and the assessment of the criminality and culpability of the appellant. The appeal raised questions about whether the District Court judge had erred in her understanding of the nature of the offences, whether the judge adequately considered alternative sentences, and whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the appellant's circumstances.

The Court of Criminal Appeal meticulously examined the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel. It first addressed the contention that the District Court judge had misconstrued the nature of the appellant's criminal conduct, particularly regarding the breach of trust. The court found that despite the phrasing of certain remarks, the judge had a clear understanding of the appellant's actions and the gravity of his criminal conduct. The court also considered the appellant's claim that the judge had failed to adequately justify the choice of non-custodial sentences. The Court found that while the judge did not explicitly state her reasoning for opting for certain sentences, her overall remarks and the context of the sentencing proceedings indicated a thorough consideration of all sentencing options.

Furthermore, the court evaluated the appellant's argument that the delay in the legal proceedings and his clean prior record warranted a more lenient sentence. Although acknowledging the significance of the delay, the court concluded that the judge had given appropriate weight to this factor. The court also dismissed the claim that the offences could have been dealt with in the Local Court, finding that the nature and extent of the criminality warranted the indictable proceedings.

Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeal held that there was no manifest error in the sentencing process but granted leave to appeal. However, the appeal was dismissed as the sentences imposed were deemed to be within the acceptable range of the judge's discretion, considering the appellant's persistent and deliberate criminal conduct over a period of time.

Orders