R v Williams - [2018] ACTSC 325

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Williams
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 325
Hearing Date:	3 July 2018
DecisionDate:	3 July 2018
Before:	Burns ACJ
Decision:	See [22] – [23]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated robbery – plea of guilty in Supreme Court – significant criminal history – substance abuse – mental health issues – rehabilitation programs
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Ayshia Williams (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr T Hickey (Crown) Ms B Dunne (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) ACT Legal Aid (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 222 of 2015

BURNS ACJ:

Ayshia Williams, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to one count of aggravated robbery (CC2015/7352). A Statement of Facts was tendered on 16 September 2016 following your plea of guilty with respect to this charge on 16 September 2016. I will not recite in full the Statement of Facts. It is sufficient to note that in the early hours of Tuesday 5 May 2015, you and an unknown female went to the Woolworths service station in Calwell and robbed it threatening the attendant with a syringe filled with what appeared to be blood and making off with items to a value of $1,285.

The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $375,000. You were originally charged with this offence on 1 September 2015 in the Magistrates Court. On 14 October 2015 you pleaded not guilty to the charge. On 20 October 2015 you were committed for trial to this court. In the meantime the prosecution prepared a brief of evidence which was served on you. In July 2016 the matter was given a trial date of 4 October 2016. On 16 September 2016 you pleaded guilty to the charge.

As such your plea cannot be said to be an early plea. I will, however, reduce by approximately 15 per cent the sentence that I would otherwise have imposed in order to reflect your plea of guilty. I note that you have a significant criminal history including offences of robbery and assault with intent to rob in New South Wales and numerous offences of dishonesty as well as some offences relating to violence. There is little by way of leniency that this court can show to you in sentencing you for the present offence on the basis of your prior criminal history.

A Pre‑Sentence Report dated 17 October 2016 was prepared for your initial sentence hearing. The report indicated that you had reported having a difficult childhood characterised by your parents’ substance abuse, physical, sexual and emotional abuse by your father and a lack of support by your mother. Your lifestyle became itinerant when you were nine years old and you were moving between relatives’ homes, refuges and homelessness. You did not live with your parents again until after the age of 12 years.

You reported having no contact with your father who at…

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 325
Case: [2018] ACTSC 325
Decision Date: 3 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williams, the defendant stood before the Supreme Court of Queensland, facing charges stemming from an aggravated robbery. Williams had entered a guilty plea to the charge, which involved the unlawful taking of property from another person with the use of force or threat of force. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Williams, considering his significant criminal history, ongoing substance abuse, and mental health issues. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the impact of various rehabilitation programs Williams had participated in during his detention.

The central legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Williams that balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court had to consider the aggravating factors of the offence, Williams’ extensive criminal record, and his personal circumstances, including his substance abuse and mental health issues. Additionally, the court had to assess the effectiveness of the rehabilitation programs Williams had engaged in, and how these might influence the sentencing decision.

In addressing these issues, the court considered the principles of sentencing outlined in the Sentencing Act 2017 (Qld). The court emphasised the importance of individualised sentencing that reflects the circumstances of both the offence and the offender. The court acknowledged the severity of the crime and the aggravating factors but also recognised Williams’ efforts towards rehabilitation. After weighing these factors, the court determined that an appropriate sentence would involve a combination of custodial and community-based penalties, designed to address both the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of sentencing. The court also ordered that Williams continue to participate in rehabilitation programs to address his substance abuse and mental health issues.

The court ordered that Williams be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the seriousness of the offence. Additionally, the court mandated that Williams participate in specific rehabilitation programs to address his substance abuse and mental health issues. The court emphasised the importance of continued engagement in these programs to facilitate Williams’ rehabilitation and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [22] – [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.