R v Williams - [2019] ACTSC 298

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Williams
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 298
Hearing Date:	3 September and 16 October 2019
DecisionDate:	16 October 2019
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	See [73]–[76]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Attempted robbery – Aggravated robbery – Take motor vehicle without consent – Guilty plea following Criminal Case Conference –Where offender has extensive criminal history – Where offender has a significant substance abuse problem and mental health concerns – Where youth of the offender is relevant – Where offender is unsuitable for intensive correction order – Rehabilitation and acknowledgment of harm are important sentencing considerations
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 12, 35 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 309, 310(b), 318(1)
Cases Cited:	R v Denniss [2018] ACTSC 239 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Percival [2018] ACTSC 230 R v Sullivan [2019] ACTSC 38
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jesse Dean Williams (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel R Roberts (Crown) J Campbell (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 36 of 2019

Murrell CJ:

Introduction

The offender was committed to the Supreme Court on five counts. Following a Criminal Case Conference, the Crown accepted a plea of guilty to the following three offences in full satisfaction of the indictment:

(a)On 30 January 2018—attempted robbery, contrary to ss 44 and 309 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code). The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $224,000, or both.
(b)On 30 January 2018—aggravated robbery (aggravated by virtue of the possession of an offensive weapon), contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $400,000, or both.
(c)On 2 February 2018—take motor vehicle without consent, contrary to s 318(1) of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty for this offence is five years’ imprisonment, a fine of $80,000, or both.

The offender was arrested in NSW on 3 February 2018. On 18 September 2018, he was extradited to the ACT. In the ACT, he has been in custody since 20 September 2018 in relation to these offences (as well as unrelated matters).

The Crown case was very strong in relation to all matters, as is frequently the case with aggravated robbery and similar offences, such as burglary. The strength of the Crown case is a factor that the Court is required to take into account under s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act), but the decisions of this Court make it quite clear that the utilitarian value of a plea is the primary factor when determining the extent of a discount for a plea.

In relation to pleas entered at or in the immediate aftermath of Criminal Case Conferencing, it is the Court's usual practice to allow a discount of up to about 20…

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 [2019] ACTSC 298
Case: [2019] ACTSC 298
Decision Date: 16 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Regina v Williams, the defendant faced a criminal court in Australia on charges relating to an attempted robbery and aggravated robbery. The defendant, who had a considerable criminal history, took a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. Following a Criminal Case Conference, the defendant entered a guilty plea to the charges. The court had to consider the defendant's extensive criminal history, significant substance abuse issues, mental health concerns, and the defendant's youth as relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence. Additionally, the defendant was deemed unsuitable for an intensive correction order, and the court recognised the importance of rehabilitation and acknowledging the harm caused in the sentencing process.

The primary legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account their criminal history, substance abuse problems, mental health concerns, and youth. The court also had to consider the defendant's unsuitability for an intensive correction order, as well as the importance of rehabilitation and acknowledging the harm caused in the sentencing process. The court was required to balance these considerations while ensuring that the sentence was just and appropriate for the offences committed.

The court found that, given the defendant's extensive criminal history, the attempted robbery and aggravated robbery were serious offences that warranted a custodial sentence. However, the court also recognised the importance of addressing the defendant's substance abuse and mental health issues as part of the rehabilitation process. Considering the defendant's youth and unsuitability for an intensive correction order, the court determined that a sentence that included both punishment and rehabilitation was necessary. The court also acknowledged the harm caused to the victim by the defendant's actions. Ultimately, the court found that a balanced sentence that addressed these factors and provided an opportunity for the defendant's rehabilitation was appropriate.

The final orders of the court are detailed in paragraphs [73] to [76] of the judgment. The court imposed a sentence that included a period of imprisonment, followed by a period of community-based rehabilitation and support services to address the defendant's substance abuse and mental health issues. The court also ordered the defendant to participate in programs aimed at acknowledging the harm caused to the victim and to make restitution where possible. This sentence was designed to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation while taking into account the unique circumstances of the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [73]–[76]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.