R v Williams

[2021] ACTSC 127

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Williams

Citation:

[2021] ACTSC 127

Hearing Date:

24 June 2021

DecisionDate:

24 June 2021

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See [10]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Guilty Plea – capacity to remit – matter remitted to Magistrates Court

Legislation Cited:

Supreme Court Act 1993 (ACT), s 68F

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Serena Williams (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

P Dickson (Crown)

S McLaughlin (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 244 of 2020; SCC 245 of 2020

ELKAIM J:

1. In this matter the accused person was facing an indictment dated 30 November 2020 which contained four counts. The first of those was an indictable offence. Count 3 was transferred to this Court from the Magistrates Court because of its association with the indictable offence. Counts 2 and 4 came to this Court by way of ex officio indictment.

1. Ms Williams entered pleas to Counts 2 and 3 in full satisfaction of the whole of the indictment. Following the entry of the pleas Mr McLaughlin, on her behalf, requested that the two counts be remitted to the Magistrates Court.

1. A matter may be remitted under section 68F of the Supreme Court Act 1993 (ACT). The Crown raised the point that a matter could not be remitted because the word ‘remit’ necessarily entails a sending back.

1. Mr McLaughlin said that a remitting includes a sending but not necessarily back. In other words, for Count 2 to be remitted, it did not need to have originated in the Magistrates Court.

1. My initial reaction was that the Crown was correct in that a remittal requires the Count to have come from the Magistrates Court. On reflection, I think the definition of remitting does not necessarily require the matter to have originated in the Magistrates Court. I am reminded that in the High Court matters which have commenced in the High Court are frequently remitted to the Federal Court.

1. A perusal of dictionaries is not overly helpful. However I note the online Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘remit’ as “to refer a matter to someone in authority to deal with.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has this definition: “to submit or refer for consideration, judgment, decision, or action.”

1. On the other hand, the Collins Dictionary says remit, in relation to the law, means “to send back (a case or proceeding) to an inferior court for further consideration or action.”

1. The first two definitions are consistent with my view that remitting a matter does not necessarily involve it being sent back to a source from which it emanated. I think this view is consistent with the intent of s 68F.

1. The Crown did not advance any other reason other than the technical aspect I have referred to for opposing the remittal.

1. Accordingly, having regard to my interpretation of the word ‘remit’, I remit the two counts upon which Ms Williams pleaded guilty to the Magistrates Court.

I certify that the preceding ten [10] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Elkaim

Associate:

Date: 28 June 2021

**************

Amendments

29 June 2021     Replace “SCC 225 of 2020” with “SCC 245 of 2020”                Cover page

Replace single quotation marks with double quotation marks     Paragraphs [6]-[7]     

30 June 2021     Replace “indicatable” with “indictable”  Paragraph [1]