Legal Research
Cases
R v Williams

R v Williams

Case [2006] SASC 377 14 December 2006

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Applications Under Various Acts or Rules: Criminal)
R v WILLIAMS
[2006] SASC 377
Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Sulan
14 December 2006
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES - SENTENCING
Application by the Crown pursuant to s 23 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 - respondent pleaded guilty to indecent assault and contravening a paedophile restraining order - respondent's prior convictions include assault with the intent to commit indecent assault, common assault and breaching a designated condition of his parole - whether respondent is capable or willing to control his sexual instincts - consideration of the factors that the Court should consider when determining capability or willingness - whether an order to have the respondent detained, for an indeterminate period, is required to protect the community - application dismissed, held that although the respondent is unwilling to control his sexual desires in certain circumstances, he is capable of doing so.
Section 20B of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1935 raised by the Crown for consideration by the Court - whether the respondent should be declared a serious repeat offender and sentenced accordingly - consideration of the factors that the Court should consider when determining whether a person is a serious repeat offender - duty of the Crown when making an application to indicate its position and to make relevant submissions to the Court - application dismissed.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 48, s 49, s 56, s 58, s 59, s 63, s 63A, s 63B, s 69, s 72, s 74; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 s 20B, s 23 (1), (2), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10); Summary Procedure Act 1921 s 99I; Sumary Offences Act 1953 s 23, referred to.
Chester v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 611; Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348; McGarry v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 121; R v England (2004) 87 SASR 411; R v Moffatt [1998] 2 VR 229; R v O'Shea (1997) 94 A Crim R 560; R v Whyte [2006] SASC 56, considered.

R v WILLIAMS
[2006] SASC 377
Criminal
Introduction

SULAN J: Justin Alan Williams (“the defendant”) pleaded guilty in the Holden Hill Magistrates Court to indecent assault, contrary to s 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (“the CLCA”). The maximum penalty for the offence is eight years imprisonment. He also pleaded guilty to contravening a paedophile restraining order, contrary to s 99I of the Summary Procedure Act 1921 (“the SPA”), which had been imposed on 7 July 2005. The maximum penalty for that offence is two years imprisonment.
The offences were committed on 25 August 2005. On 6 April 2006, a magistrate remanded the defendant to the…

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 [2006] SASC 377
Case: [2006] SASC 377
Decision Date: 14 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Williams, the respondent pleaded guilty to charges of indecent assault and contravening a paedophile restraining order. The Crown sought an application under section 23 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, arguing that the respondent should be detained for an indeterminate period to protect the community. The respondent had a history of convictions, including assault with intent to commit indecent assault, common assault, and breaching parole conditions. The central issue was whether the respondent was capable or willing to control his sexual instincts and whether a detention order was necessary for community protection.

The court considered the factors relevant to assessing the respondent's capability and willingness to control his sexual desires. The respondent's history suggested a pattern of offending behaviour, but the court found that he was capable of controlling his sexual instincts, albeit unwilling in certain circumstances. The court held that while the respondent's conduct demonstrated a need for control, he was not beyond the reach of rehabilitation and thus did not warrant an indefinite detention order.

In addition to the detention application, the Crown raised section 20B of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1935, seeking to declare the respondent a serious repeat offender. The court examined the criteria for determining a serious repeat offender, including the nature and frequency of previous offences. The Crown was required to articulate its position and make relevant submissions. However, the court dismissed the application, finding that although the respondent's criminal history was concerning, the factors did not meet the threshold for a serious repeat offender declaration.

Ultimately, the court dismissed both applications by the Crown, finding that while the respondent's conduct warranted concern, there was no basis for an indefinite detention order or a declaration as a serious repeat offender. The court's reasoning focused on the respondent's capability to control his sexual desires and the absence of sufficient evidence to meet the stringent criteria for the serious repeat offender designation.

Orders