R v Williams - [2017] QCA 307

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Williams [2017] QCA 307

PARTIES:

R
v
WILLIAMS, Joshua
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 198 of 2017
DC No 489 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 18 August 2017 (Martin SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

15 December 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 November 2017

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Fraser and Gotterson JJA

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of using a carriage service to cause child pornography material to be transmitted to himself; one count of using a carriage service to publish child pornography material; four counts of using a carriage service to make a threat to kill; one count of using a carriage service to transmit child pornography material; and nine counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend – where the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment on the first count and lesser periods of imprisonment on the remaining counts, with an order under s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) that the applicant be released on recognizance after serving seven months – where the applicant argues the period of actual custody required to be served under the sentence renders it more severe than is appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive –whether leave to appeal against the sentence should be granted

R v Leask (2013) 236 A Crim R 1; [2013] WASCA 243, cited
R v Lovi[2012] QCA 24, cited

COUNSEL:

S M Ryan QC for the applicant
L K Crowley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

HOLMES CJ: The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of using a carriage service to cause child pornography material to be transmitted to himself; one count of using a carriage service to publish child pornography material; four counts of using a carriage service to make a threat to kill; one count of using a carriage service to transmit child pornography material; and nine counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment on the first of those counts and lesser periods of imprisonment on the remaining counts, with an order under s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) that he be released on recognizance after serving seven months. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.
The offences
According to a statement of facts tendered to the court without objection, the applicant was aged 17 and 18 at the times of the offences. He had contacted a young woman (to whom I will refer as “AB”) through the internet, using what is described as a “mobile chatting app”. AB was aged…

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 [2017] QCA 307
Case: [2017] QCA 307
Decision Date: 15 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal against sentence by the applicant, Williams, who had pleaded guilty to various offences under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). These included using a carriage service to cause child pornography material to be transmitted, using a carriage service to publish child pornography material, using a carriage service to make threats to kill, transmitting child pornography material, and using a carriage service to menace, harass, or offend. The applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment for the first count and lesser periods of imprisonment for the remaining counts, with a provision for release on recognizance after serving seven months. Williams argued that the period of actual custody required to be served under the sentence rendered it more severe than is appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that leave to appeal against the sentence should be granted.

The court was required to decide whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether leave to appeal against the sentence should be granted. The central issue was the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence imposed, considering the nature and severity of the offences committed. The court examined whether the sentence was disproportionate in light of the overall circumstances, including the need for deterrence and denunciation, and whether it failed to achieve a just outcome for the victim, the community, and the applicant.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It held that the sentence imposed reflected the seriousness of the offences and was proportionate to the applicant's conduct. The court took into account the need for both general and specific deterrence, as well as the need to denounce the criminal behaviour. It also considered the impact on the victim and the community, as well as the applicant's personal circumstances. The court concluded that the sentence was fair and appropriate, and thus did not warrant an appeal against the sentence.

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court's decision was that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the nature and severity of the offences and did not render it manifestly excessive. The court's order was that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.

CITATION:	R v Williams [2017] QCA 307
PARTIES:	R v WILLIAMS, Joshua (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 198 of 2017 DC No 489 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 18 August 2017 (Martin SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	15 December 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 November 2017
JUDGES:	Holmes CJ and Fraser and Gotterson JJA
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of using a carriage service to cause child pornography material to be transmitted to himself; one count of using a carriage service to publish child pornography material; four counts of using a carriage service to make a threat to kill; one count of using a carriage service to transmit child pornography material; and nine counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend – where the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment on the first count and lesser periods of imprisonment on the remaining counts, with an order under s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) that the applicant be released on recognizance after serving seven months – where the applicant argues the period of actual custody required to be served under the sentence renders it more severe than is appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive –whether leave to appeal against the sentence should be granted R v Leask (2013) 236 A Crim R 1; [2013] WASCA 243, cited R v Lovi[2012] QCA 24, cited
COUNSEL:	S M Ryan QC for the applicant L K Crowley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent