R v Williams

The appellant in this case appealed against his sentence, having pleaded guilty to aggravated serious criminal trespass and theft in a place of residence committed on 23 January 2005 and been convicted following a jury trial of illegal use of a motor vehicle, four counts of theft, aggravated robbery and dishonestly manipulating an automatic teller machine all committed in February 2005. The appellant was sentenced for all of the offences, and the appeal was based on the grounds that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive due to the misapplication of the totality principle and section 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA). The appeal raised questions about whether the sentencing Judge had correctly applied section 18A and the totality principle. The court discussed the relevant case law and considered the sentence imposed.

The court identified an error in the court record, which suggested that a single sentence of imprisonment was imposed in respect of all offending, which was at odds with the sentences pronounced. The court held that it was important that the formal record of the court correctly records the sentences imposed and that separate sentences imposed in respect of separate offending should be clearly disclosed on the face of the Court Record. The endorsement and the Court Record should be corrected to accurately record the sentences imposed. The appeal was dismissed.

The court concluded that the principle of totality should be considered after a judge has determined the sentence to be imposed having had regard to all other relevant considerations. The sentencing remarks in the present case did not disclose whether this had occurred, and there was a possibility that the Judge fell into error. However, each of the separate sentences imposed by the sentencing Judge was well within the range of appropriate sentences for the relevant criminal conduct. The Judge had in mind a sentence that would not crush the appellant, and the Judge expressed the view that he would make the sentences as short as he thought he could make them consistent with his duty to the community to impose sentences that would operate as an effective deterrent. The aggregate sentence imposed could not be described as crushing, and the period of imprisonment to be served represented appropriate punishment with respect to the appellant’s offending.

The court also noted that there was no suggestion that the sentencing Judge had regard to any irrelevant factors when determining the sentences to be imposed, nor was there any suggestion that the Judge failed to have adequate regard to any relevant considerations. The court was not prepared to conclude that the sentencing Judge incorrectly applied the totality principle, and there had not been a miscarriage of justice. The sentences imposed, both separately and when aggregated, were within a proper sentencing discretion for the appellant’s criminal offending. The court ordered the endorsement and the Court Record to be corrected to accurately record the sentences imposed.