Legal Research
Cases
R v Williams

R v Williams

Case [2018] NSWSC 994 29 June 2018

Appeal

Bail

Unreasonable Verdicts

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Williams [2018] NSWSC 994
Hearing dates: 2 May 2018
Date of orders: 29 June 2018
Decision date: 29 June 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
(1) The detention application is granted.

(2) I revoke the bail granted by Judge Pickering SC on 23 March 2018.
(3) The respondent is remanded in custody.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – bail – bail pending an appeal from a jury verdict – where trial judge granted bail after conviction – subsequent detention application by Crown - where appeal grounds assert inconsistent verdicts and unreasonable verdicts – test for assessing likelihood of success of grounds of appeal – particular problems on bail application where unreasonable verdict asserted - where respondent established only that grounds of appeal are arguable – detention application granted
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 1978 (NSW) s 30AA
Bail Act 2013 (NSW) s 22
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 33A, 93G
Cases Cited: DPP v SKA [2009] NSWCA 51
El-Hilli and Melville v R [2015] NSWCCA 146
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
McKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35
Petroulias v R [2010] NSWCCA 95
R v Antoun [2005] NSWCCA 270
R v Bonat [2004] NSWCCA 240
R v Wilson (1994) 34 NSWLR 1; (1994) 73 A Crim R 532
United Mexican States v Cabal (2001) 209 CLR 165; [2001] HCA 60
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown (Applicant)
Kyle Williams (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Smith (Applicant)
R Rajalingam (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Applicant)
King & York Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/102799
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 12 February 2018 the respondent stood trial before Judge Pickering and a jury of 12 on 3 counts as follows:

Count 1 – Discharge firearm in a public place contrary to s 93G(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);
Count 2 - Discharge firearm in a public place contrary to s 93G(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);
Count 3 – Discharge firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to s 33A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act.

The s 93G offence has a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. The s 33A offence has a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of nine years.
On 12 March 2018 the respondent was convicted on counts 2 and 3 but acquitted on count 1.
After the respondent had been arrested he was remanded in custody from 2 July 2016 to 28 July 2016. On the latter date he was released on conditional bail.
After his conviction on 12 March 2018 he was remanded in custody but on 23 March 2018 he was released on bail by the trial judge, Judge Pickering SC. The release order was made on the same conditions that had previously applied.…

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 [2018] NSWSC 994
Case: [2018] NSWSC 994
Decision Date: 29 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a criminal defendant, Williams, who had been convicted by a jury. The Crown subsequently applied for Williams' detention while his appeal against the conviction was being heard. The primary issue before the court was whether Williams should be released on bail pending the outcome of his appeal. The appeal grounds raised by Williams included the assertion that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable. The court had to determine the appropriate test for assessing the likelihood of success of these grounds of appeal and the implications for bail pending appeal.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases, particularly the need to balance the right to liberty of the accused against the public interest in preventing flight and ensuring the fair administration of justice. The court emphasised that the test for bail pending appeal is whether the grounds of appeal are arguable, not whether they are likely to succeed. However, the court also noted the particular difficulties that arise when an unreasonable verdict is alleged, as this can impact the assessment of the likelihood of success on appeal. The court concluded that in such cases, the respondent must establish that the grounds of appeal are arguable, but this alone may not be sufficient to warrant bail.

In this case, the court found that Williams had established that the grounds of appeal were arguable, but the Crown had shown that there were substantial grounds to believe that the appeal would be successful. The court accepted that the alleged unreasonableness of the verdict was a significant factor in favour of detention. Consequently, the court granted the Crown's application for Williams to be detained pending the outcome of his appeal. The court highlighted the importance of ensuring that the administration of justice is not prejudiced by the release of an appellant on bail when there are substantial grounds to believe that the appeal will succeed.

Orders