R v Williams - [2015] ACTSC 150

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Williams
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 150
Hearing Dates:	23 April 2015, 2 June 2015
DecisionDate:	5 June 2015
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [23]-[30]
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – particular offences – property offences – dishonesty offences – theft – aggravated burglary –driving offences – driving a motor vehicle without consent – driving whilst disqualified – dangerous driving – proceeding through a red arrow – exceed speed limit by more than 45 kilometres per hour.
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Derek Joseph Williams (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr G Mansfield (Crown) Ms K Bolas (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kim Bolas Criminal Law Specialist (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 190 of 2014; SCC 191 of 2014

BURNS J:

Background

Derek Williams, you have pleaded guilty to one offence of aggravated burglary, one offence of theft and one offence of dishonestly and without consent driving a motor vehicle belonging to another person. The circumstance of aggravation with respect to the aggravated burglary offence is that you were in company with your co‑offender, Paul Kelly. In addition, you have entered pleas of guilty to related offences, being an offence of driving whilst disqualified as a repeat offender, an offence of dangerous driving, an offence of proceeding through a red traffic arrow and an offence of exceeding the speed limit by more than 45 kilometres per hour.

The maximum penalty for the offence of aggravated burglary is 20 years' imprisonment, a fine of $140,000.00 or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of theft is 10 years' imprisonment, a fine of $140,000.00 or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of dishonestly and without consent driving a motor vehicle belonging to another person is five years' imprisonment, a fine of $70,000.00 or both. The maximum penalty for the offence of driving whilst disqualified as a repeat offender is 12 months' imprisonment, a fine of $14,000.00 or both. In addition, there is an automatic licence disqualification period of 24 months, although a longer disqualification period may be imposed. The maximum penalty for the offence of dangerous driving is 12 months' imprisonment, a fine of $14,000.00 or both. There is an automatic disqualification period of three months, although, again, a longer disqualification period may be imposed. The maximum penalty for the offence of proceeding through a red arrow is a fine of $2800.00, but I note that the ordinary traffic infringement notice penalty for that offence is $360.00. Finally, the maximum penalty for the offence of exceeding the speed limit by greater than 45 kilometres an hour is a fine of $2800.00, although the ordinary traffic infringement notice penalty for that offence is $1800.00.

An Agreed Statement of Facts was tendered at the sentence hearing. I will not here recite those facts in full. It is sufficient to note that you were part of a joint enterprise with your co‑offender of entering retail premises in Fyshwick at about 3.48 am on…

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 150
Case: [2015] ACTSC 150
Decision Date: 5 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams involved the defendant, Williams, who was convicted of multiple criminal offences. The offences included theft, aggravated burglary, driving without consent, driving while disqualified, dangerous driving, and exceeding the speed limit by more than 45 kilometres per hour. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the primary issue was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the defendant's multiple and serious criminal activities.

The court was required to address several legal issues, primarily centred around the principles of sentencing for multiple offences and the appropriate weight to be given to each offence. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of each offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation in its sentencing decision. The court also needed to balance the cumulative effect of the offences against the principles of proportionality and consistency in sentencing.

The court, after thorough deliberation, concluded that the defendant's offending was of a high level of seriousness, involving both property and driving offences. The court took into account the defendant's previous convictions and the need to deter not only the defendant but also others from engaging in similar criminal conduct. In determining the sentence, the court emphasised the cumulative impact of the offences and the significant risk posed to the community by the defendant's behaviour. The court ordered a total sentence that reflected the severity of the offences and the need for both punishment and deterrence. The specific details of the sentence, including any custodial term and fines, were outlined in the court's reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [23]-[30]

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.