R v Williams

Case [2015] QCA 276


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 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Toowoomba – Unreported, 6 August 2014

DELIVERED 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 made

ORDER:

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, considered

COUNSEL:

C W Heaton QC for the applicant
S J Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. PHILIP McMURDO JA:  I agree with Bond J.

  2. JACKSON J:  I agree with Bond J.

  3. 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.

  4. His wife immediately woke in terrible pain, finding a…

Continue reading R v Williams

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Williams [2015] QCA 276
Case
[2015] QCA 276
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams involved an appeal against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, who had pleaded guilty to burglary and was convicted of attempted murder, sought leave to appeal against the sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment imposed for the attempted murder charge. The applicant had broken into his estranged wife’s house, where his two-year-old daughter was present, and stabbed the victim while she slept. The attack was premeditated, unprovoked, and in breach of a domestic violence order, causing considerable emotional harm to both the victim and the applicant’s daughter.

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.