R v Williams - [2015] ACTSC 406

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Williams
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 406
Hearing Dates:	23 October 2015, 26 November 2015, 10 December 2015
DecisionDate:	18 December 2015
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	1. The offender is convicted. 2. The offender is sentenced to three years imprisonment, backdated to 6 September 2015. 3. A non-parole period of 18 months is set, running from 6 September 2015.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –offender to be sentenced for recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on brother after argument – plea of guilty after negotiations – failure to engage with authorities to enable preparation of pre-sentence report and CADAS report – serious injuries sustained by victim – offence not far below mid-range seriousness – significant criminal history including several offences of violence including one committed since the current offence – no explanation for violent behaviour in offender’s background – drug and alcohol use not linked to current offence – need for general and specific deterrence – consideration of comparable cases – low non-parole period set to allow extended supervision in community.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 20
Cases Cited:	Carberry v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 20 R v Amosa [2015] ACTSC 34 R v David Christopher Laipato [2010] ACTSC, Nield AJ, 16 September 2010 R v Pumpa [2014] ACTSC 223 R v Steven Colin Webb [2003] ACTSC, Crispin J, 28 August 2003
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Luke Williams (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K Mackenzie (Crown) Mr D Johns (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 139 of 2015

The offence

Luke Williams has pleaded guilty to one count of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 13 years.

The incident

The incident giving rise to this charge took place on 7 March this year. At the end of a trip from Sydney involving Mr Williams, his then partner, and his twin brother Rick, there was an argument between the two brothers. Mr Williams, who was driving the vehicle, stopped it in Hackett and both men got out. Rick Williams ran away, and Mr Williams chased him, carrying a guitar which he had removed from the vehicle. When Mr Williams caught up with his brother, he brought the guitar down on the right side of his brother's head, rendering him unconscious.

Residents of nearby houses came out, and observed Rick Williams on the ground with blood coming from his head. As Rick Williams regained consciousness, Luke Williams was heard to tell his brother not to move because he would kill himself. Mr Williams also shouted for someone to call an ambulance.

Rick Williams was taken to hospital, where he was found to have a depressed skull fracture and a haematoma on his brain, as well as other fractures, lacerations, cuts and bruises, mainly on the right side…

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 [2015] ACTSC 406
Case: [2015] ACTSC 406
Decision Date: 18 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams involved an offender who had pleaded guilty to recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on his brother during an argument. The dispute came before the court for sentencing following the offender's guilty plea, which was reached after negotiations. The victim sustained serious injuries, and the offence was deemed not far below mid-range seriousness. The offender had a significant criminal history, including several violent offences, with one committed since the current offence. The offender did not provide any explanation for his violent behaviour, and drug and alcohol use were not considered to be factors in the current offence.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were the appropriate sentence for the offence, considering the offender's plea, the seriousness of the injury, and the offender's criminal history. The court needed to balance the need for general and specific deterrence with the possibility of rehabilitation, taking into account comparable cases. The court also had to determine a suitable non-parole period to allow for extended supervision in the community.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the offender's failure to engage with authorities to enable the preparation of a pre-sentence report and a CADAS report. The court determined that the offender's violent behaviour and criminal history warranted a custodial sentence, but also recognised the possibility of rehabilitation through extended supervision in the community. The court set a non-parole period of 18 months, allowing for this possibility, and sentenced the offender to three years imprisonment, backdated to the date of the offence.

The court's final orders were that the offender be convicted, sentenced to three years imprisonment backdated to 6 September 2015, and that a non-parole period of 18 months be set, running from the same date.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The offender is convicted.

2. The offender is sentenced to three years imprisonment, backdated to 6 September 2015.

3. A non-parole period of 18 months is set, running from 6 September 2015.

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.