SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Williams [2015] QCA 276
PARTIES:
R
v
WILLIAMS, Darren James
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
CA No 210 of 2014
SC No 3 of 2014DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Toowoomba – Unreported, 6 August 2014DELIVERED ON:
18 December 2015
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
30 November 2015
JUDGES:
Philip McMurdo JA and Jackson and Bond JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
The application for leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary and was convicted after trial on one count of attempted murder – where applicant had broken into his estranged wife’s house and stabbed her while she was asleep – where applicant’s two year old daughter was asleep next to the victim – where applicant in breach of a domestic violence order – where offence led to considerable emotional harm to the victim and applicant’s daughter – where applicant had plead guilty to alternate charge of doing grievous bodily harm with intent – where offence was premeditated and unprovoked – where applicant sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for attempted murder – whether sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances
Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, cited
R v Ahmetaj[2015] QCA 248, cited
R v Batchelor[2009] QCA 150, considered
R v Goodwin; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2014] QCA 345, cited
R v Kay[2012] QCA 327, considered
R v Kerwin[2005] QCA 259, considered
R v Mallie, Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2009] QCA 109, considered
R v Rochester; Ex parte Attorney-General(Qld)[2003] QCA 326, cited
R v Schaefer[2001] QCA 327, considered
R v Seijbel-Chocmingkwan[2014] QCA 119, considered
R v Tout[2012] QCA 296, cited
R v Witchard;ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2005] 1 Qd R 428; [2004] QCA 429, consideredCOUNSEL:
C W Heaton QC for the applicant
S J Farnden for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
PHILIP McMURDO JA: I agree with Bond J.
JACKSON J: I agree with Bond J.
BOND J: Late in the evening a little less than a year after he had separated from his wife of one year and only a week after he had learned she had started a new relationship, the applicant armed himself with a knife; drove to and broke into his wife’s home; made his way to her bedroom where she was sleeping on her back with their two year old daughter by her side and – using both hands – plunged the knife deeply into her chest and ran off.
His wife immediately woke in terrible pain, finding a…
Continue reading R v Williams
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Williams [2015] QCA 276
- Case
- [2015] QCA 276
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionately severe given the circumstances of the case, including the presence of the child, the emotional harm caused, and the fact that the applicant had already pleaded guilty to an alternate charge of doing grievous bodily harm with intent. The court had to weigh these factors against the gravity of the attempted murder charge and the need for deterrence and denunciation.
In considering the application, the court recognised the serious nature of the offence and the significant emotional harm caused to the victim and the child. However, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It took into account the premeditated and unprovoked nature of the attack, the breach of the domestic violence order, and the need to uphold the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court concluded that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and was commensurate with the need to protect the community and deter similar conduct. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application for leave to appeal is 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.