R v Williams - [2018] ACTSC 354

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Williams
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 354
Hearing Dates:	3 August 2018, 11 October 2018
DecisionDate:	18 October 2018
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [16]-[23]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – unlawful confinement – threat to kill – offence of inflicting actual bodily harm – two counts of common assault – aggravated dangerous driving – objective seriousness – criminal history – intensive corrections order assessment – likelihood of deportation – imminent deportation is a factor which bears upon the likelihood of being able to comply with the terms of an intensive corrections order – pleas of guilty – terms of imprisonment imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 23, 26, 34, 374 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 46D, 78 Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT) s 63(3) Road Transport Safety and Traffic Management Act 1999 (ACT) ss 7(1), 7A(1)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Kaanei Matthew Williams (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Naidu (Crown) Mr P Edmonds (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Paul Edmonds & Associates (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 126 of 2018; SCC 133 of 2018

BURNS J:

Kaanei Williams, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to the following five charges: one offence of unlawful confinement, one offence of threat to kill, one offence of inflicting actual bodily harm, two counts of common assault and one count of aggravated dangerous driving.

The maximum penalty for the offence of unlawful confinement, contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) is 10 years' imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offence of threat to kill contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act is 10 years' imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the offence of inflicting actual bodily harm, contrary to s 23 of the Crimes Act, is five years' imprisonment. However, pursuant to s 374 of the Crimes Act, the prosecution elected for that charge to be disposed of summarily, which makes the maximum penalty two years' imprisonment, a fine of $5,000 or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of common assault contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act is two years' imprisonment and the maximum penalty for the offence of aggravated dangerous driving, contrary to ss 7(1) and 7A(1) of the Road Transport Safety and Traffic Management Act 1999 (ACT) is two years' imprisonment, a fine of $30,000 or both and an automatic license disqualification period of 12 months, or such longer period as the court considers appropriate.

A comprehensive agreed Statement of Facts was tendered in the sentence hearing. I will not now recite the facts in full. It is sufficient to note that on 26 February 2018, you were on bail in relation to family violence charges against your partner, KS, who is the mother of your baby daughter and your unborn child. Your bail conditions prohibited you from assaulting or intimidating KS, being…

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 [2018] ACTSC 354
Case: [2018] ACTSC 354
Decision Date: 18 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an individual, Williams, who had pleaded guilty to various offences. These included unlawful confinement, making a threat to kill, inflicting actual bodily harm, two counts of common assault, and aggravated dangerous driving. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these offences, considering factors such as the objective seriousness of the crimes, the offender's criminal history, and the possibility of imposing an intensive corrections order. Additionally, the court had to assess the likelihood of deportation and its impact on the offender's ability to comply with the terms of an intensive corrections order.

The central legal issues that the court had to resolve were the appropriate sentencing framework for the offences committed, the relevance of the defendant's criminal history, and the suitability of an intensive corrections order given the imminent threat of deportation. The court was required to weigh these factors to determine a just and proportionate sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously evaluated the nature and circumstances of each offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court recognised the objective seriousness of the offences, particularly the threat to kill and the aggravated dangerous driving. However, it also considered the defendant's guilty pleas and the possibility of deportation. The court concluded that an intensive corrections order was unsuitable due to the likelihood of deportation, which would prevent the defendant from complying with the order's terms. Consequently, the court imposed terms of imprisonment for each offence, which were to run concurrently, reflecting a balanced approach to the sentencing process.

The final orders of the court mandated specific terms of imprisonment for each of the offences, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The court's decision aimed to ensure that justice was served while taking into account the unique circumstances of the defendant, including the risk of imminent deportation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [16]-[23]

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.