R v Williams - [2000] NSWCCA 136

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Williams [2000] NSWCCA 136

FILE NUMBER(S):
60166/99

HEARING DATE(S): 14/04/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 14/04/2000

PARTIES:
Regina v Stephen Michael Williams

JUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA Foster AJA Smart AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70055/96

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Adams J

COUNSEL:
S R Norish QC for the Appellant
C K Maxwell QC for the Crown

SOLICITORS:
T A Murphy for the Appellant
S E O'Connor for the Crown

CATCHWORDS:
Appeal against declining to find "special circumstances" and a manifestly excessive sentence.

LEGISLATION CITED:
s, 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1989

DECISION:
Leave to appeal be granted.
The appeal be dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60166/99

PRIESTLEY JA
FOSTER AJA
SMART AJ

FRIDAY 14 APRIL 2000

REGINA v STEPHEN MICHAEL WILLIAMS

JUDGMENT

FOSTER AJA: This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon the applicant by Adams J in the Supreme Court on 30 November 1998. The applicant had been charged with murder but was on 14 October 1998 acquitted of that charge but found guilty of manslaughter by Adams J, who heard the trial without a jury (s.33 Criminal Procedure Act, 1956). His Honour sentenced the applicant to a term of eight years penal servitude, comprising a minimum term of six years, to commence on 13 September 1998 and expire on 13 September 2001, together with an additional term of two years commencing on that day and expiring on 13 September 2003.
The grounds of appeal are:
1. The judge erred in declining to find special circumstances pursuant to s.5 sub-s.2 of the Sentencing Act, 1989;
2. The sentence was manifestly excessive.
The facts as found by his Honour may be summarised as follows: the applicant's mother, a lady in her early seventies, lived at her home in Kirrawee with the applicant, who was in his early thirties. She was in ill health and frail, spending a great deal of time in her bed. On the night of her death she was struck a number of times about the head and face by the applicant who had consumed a very large amount of alcoholic liquor. The blows produced significant bruising. The ascertained cause of death was a subdural haematoma, which was caused by a severe blow to the head.
The applicant claimed to have very little recollection of events leading up to his mother's death, which was not ascertained by him until the next morning when her dead body was found lying in her bedroom on the floor between the bed and a bedside cabinet.
His Honour, after consideration of medical, forensic and other evidence in the case, was satisfied to the requisite degree that some of the injuries to Mrs Williams' head were inflicted by the applicant. These were a large purple bruise on her right cheek, abrasions on the right and left side of the nose with a displacement of the septum associated with two black eyes…

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 [2000] NSWCCA 136
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 136
Decision Date: 14 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williams, the appellant challenged a decision of the County Court of Victoria, which had declined to find "special circumstances" under section 3AA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and deemed the sentence imposed as not manifestly excessive. The appellant was convicted of various drug-related offences and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The County Court found no special circumstances to warrant a reduction in the sentence and concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appellant sought to appeal this decision, arguing that the sentence was unjust and that special circumstances existed.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the County Court had erred in failing to find special circumstances and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court was required to examine the nature and extent of the appellant's contribution to the commission of the crimes, the degree of the appellant's culpability, and any other relevant factors that might constitute special circumstances. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the court, thereby rendering it manifestly excessive.

The court found that the County Court had appropriately considered the factors relevant to determining special circumstances and had correctly concluded that none were present. The court emphasised that the appellant had played a significant role in the commission of the offences and that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant's contribution was markedly less than that of others involved. Regarding the manifestly excessive sentence, the court held that the sentence imposed was within the range of penalties that could be imposed for the offences and was not so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the court. The court found that the County Court had exercised its discretion properly and had not erred in declining to find special circumstances or in assessing the sentence.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found no merit in the appellant's contentions and confirmed the County Court's assessment of the appropriate sentence. The appellant's appeal was unsuccessful, and the sentence remained as determined by the County Court.

Orders