SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Williams |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 298 |
Hearing Date: | 22 February 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 23 February 2017 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [75] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – hinder police from lawful investigation – burglary – damaging property – aggravated dangerous driving – using an offensive weapon likely to endanger life to prevent lawful apprehension – culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm – failing to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking – using an unregistered vehicle – using an uninsured vehicle – driving while disqualified – failing to stop a vehicle for police – aggravated dangerous driving – resisting a public official – driving with a prescribed drug in oral fluid – pleas of guilty – convictions for previous offences – consideration of subjective circumstances – application to adjourn the hearing to participate in drug rehabilitation courses – breach of suspended sentence |
Legislation Cited: | Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 49 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 27(4)(b), 29(4), 32(2)(c), 194 Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1999 (ACT), s 18(1) |
Cases Cited: | The Queen v Todd Elphick (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 23 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Derek Joseph Williams (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel S Naidu (Crown) J Lawton (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitor (Offender) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 190 of 2014 SCC 191 of 2014 SCC 280 of 2016 SCC 281 of 2016 ACTCA 32 of 2015 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
The offender Derek Joseph Williams has pleaded guilty to eight indictable offences:
1.hindering police from lawful investigation by threatening another on 7 October 2016 (charge number CC2016/12804);
2.burglary on 1 November 2016 (CC2016/12673);
3.damaging property, namely a glass window, on 1 November 2016 (CC2016/12690);
4.aggravated dangerous driving on 6 November 2016 (CC2016/11783);
5.using an offensive weapon likely to endanger life, namely a Subaru sedan, to prevent his lawful apprehension on 6 November 2016 (CC2016/11788);
6.damaging property, namely a police Yamaha motorcycle, on 6 November 2016 (CC2016/11880);
7.damaging property, namely a Holden Commodore sedan, on 6 November 2016 (CC2016/11881); and
8.culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm on 8 November 2016 (CC2016/11828).
He has also pleaded guilty to 11 related summary offences, each of which has been transferred to the ACT Supreme Court for sentence:
1.failing to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking on 24 October 2016 (CC2016/11787);
2.using an unregistered vehicle on 6 November 2016 (CC2016/11779);
3.using an uninsured…
Continue reading R v Williams
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Williams [2017] ACTSC 298
- Case
- [2017] ACTSC 298
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the defendant's subjective circumstances should be taken into account when considering the sentence, the impact of the defendant's guilty pleas, and the appropriate response to the defendant's application to adjourn the hearing to participate in drug rehabilitation courses. Additionally, the court needed to consider the defendant's previous convictions and the breach of a suspended sentence.
In determining the sentence, the court considered the nature and seriousness of the offences committed, the defendant's previous criminal record, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court also weighed the subjective circumstances of the defendant, including the application to adjourn for drug rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court decided that the cumulative effect of the offences warranted a custodial sentence, and the defendant was sentenced accordingly. The court also noted the breach of the suspended sentence and took it into account in the sentencing process.
The final orders of the court, as reflected in the case, included the imposition of a custodial sentence on the defendant, taking into account the various offences and circumstances. The court also acknowledged the breach of the suspended sentence and made orders in relation to the defendant's participation in drug rehabilitation courses, as requested.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [75]
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.