Legal Research
Cases
R v Williams

R v Williams

Case [2002] QCA 211 21 June 2002

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Williams [2002] QCA 211

PARTIES:

R
v
WILLIAMS, David Michael
(applicant / appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 361 of 2001
DC No 424 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 May 2002

JUDGES:

Williams JA, Cullinane and Jones JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed;
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT – PROOF AND EVIDENCE – where virgin complainant was raped after being threatened by a knife – whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory because of impermissible questions relating to the complainant’s motive and prejudicial evidence concerning allegations of drug use by the appellant in the Record of Interview which was admitted - whether the failure of the defence counsel to cross-examine a particular witness caused the trial to miscarry – test in M v The Queen applied – R v E considered – Festa v The Queen followed

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURIES – DISCHARGE AND EXCUSING FROM ATTENDANCE – JURY UNABLE TO AGREE- whether learned trial judge erred in making some concluding remarks to a Black direction which might lead to putting unnecessary pressure on the jury to return a verdict

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCE – PARTICULAR CASES - whether sentence of 7 ½ years imprisonment was manifestly excessive – consideration of R v Kenneth Edwards, R v Stirling and R v Basic- application refused

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 668E

Crampton v The Queen (2000) 75 ALJR 133, considered
Crosdale v The Queen (1995) 1 WLR 864, considered
Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72, followed
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, applied
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied
R v Basic [2000] QCA 155; CA No 11 of 2001, 3 May 2000, considered
R v E (1996) 39 NSWLR 450, considered
R v Edwards [1997] 472; CA No 370 of 1997, 25 November 1997, considered
R v Geary [2002] QCA 33; CA No 241 of 2001, 22 February 2002, followed
R v Palmer (1998)193 CLR 1, followed
R v Perussich [2001] QCA 557; CA No 169 of 2001, 7 December 2001, followed
R v Stirling [1996] QCA 342; CA No 205 of 1996, 17 September 1996, considered
R v Uhrig (unreported) CCA (NSW) 24 Oct 1996, followed

COUNSEL:

A W Collins for the appellant
P R Smid, with J Greggery, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for…

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 [2002] QCA 211
Case: [2002] QCA 211
Decision Date: 21 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent against his conviction for rape, as well as an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed. The respondent was charged with raping a virgin complainant at knifepoint. The appeal against conviction hinged on several points, including the admissibility of prejudicial evidence regarding the respondent's alleged drug use, the propriety of certain questions posed to the complainant, and the impact of the defence counsel's failure to cross-examine a specific witness. Additionally, the appeal argued that the trial judge's comments during a Black direction may have unduly pressured the jury.

The court examined the grounds for the appeal, considering whether the prejudicial evidence and questions were sufficiently significant to render the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court applied the test from M v The Queen to assess whether the trial had been rendered unfair by the alleged errors. It also considered the impact of the failure to cross-examine the witness, applying principles from R v E and Festa v The Queen. The court concluded that none of the alleged errors individually or collectively were sufficient to undermine the safety and satisfaction of the jury's verdict.

The court also considered the appeal against the sentence, assessing whether the 7 ½ years imprisonment was manifestly excessive. It took into account the principles from R v Kenneth Edwards, R v Stirling, and R v Basic, but found that the sentence was within an acceptable range. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused.

The final orders were that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed;

2. 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

JONES J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: JONES J

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Williams [2002] QCA 211

Most Recent Citation

R v H [2003] QCA 147

Cases citing this decision · 8 of 8 shown

R v Cox
[2011] QCA 277 Para 1

…to the factual circumstances and the sentences imposed in R v West [2007] QCA 347 , R v Faifuaina [2004] QCA 262, R v M [2003] QCA 451, R v Williams [2002] QCA 211, R v B [1996] QCA 076, R v Shaw & Haslett [1995] QCA 294 and R v Hunt [1994] QCA 440 where applications for leave to appeal against sentence were ref…
R v Cain
[2010] QCA 373 Para 1

…y)[35] for a persistent and prolonged offence of rape where serious, but not extreme, violence has been used by the offender upon the victim. [30][2002] QCA 211. [31][2005] QCA 335. [32][2006] QCA 352. [33][2008] QCA 391. [34]At [19] referring to R v Rankmore; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 492; R v Edwards [2004]…
R v Dowden
[2010] QCA 125 Para 1

…was seven to nine years, and that the sentence imposed at first instance, of seven and a half years imprisonment, should not be disturbed. [13][2002] QCA 211.…
R v Basacar
[2006] QCA 352 Para 1

…o support the submission as to the appropriate sentencing range, the applicant relies on R v Stirling [1996] QCA 342 (“ Stirling ”); R v Williams [2002] QCA 211 (“ Williams ”); and R v SAS [2005] QCA 442 (“ SAS ”).…
R v SAS
[2005] QCA 442 Para 1

…That view is supported by another decision of this Court on which Mr Heaton relied, R v Williams [2002] QCA 211. That decision suggests that a head sentence, even in a case such as this one, could be in the order of seven years imprisonment. In Williams that applicant was convicted of one count of rape following…
R v Faifuaina
[2004] QCA 262

…ssive R v Basic (2000) 115 A Crim R 456, cited R v Bielefeld [2002] QCA 369; CA No 159 of 2002, 19 September 2002, cited R v Williams [2002] QCA 211; CA No 36 of 2001, 21 June 2002, cited COUNSEL: C A Cuthbert for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent SOLICITORS: Robinson Hoskin for the applicant Director o…
R v Els
[2004] QCA 111

…e cases to which we have been referred as comparable sentences are really comparable to the diverse offending in the circumstances here. R v Williams [2002] QCA 211; CA No 361 of 2001, 21 June 2002 and R v C [2002] QCA 82; CA No 291 of 2001, 19 March 2002, demonstrate however that an effective sentence of five ye…
R v H
[2003] QCA 147 Para 1

…The respondent relied on the sentences imposed in Fogarty CA No 418 of 1996, P [2001] QCA 25 and Williams [2002] QCA 211 as supporting a sentence of eight years in this case. In broad terms those decisions do suggest that a sentence of eight years imprisonment here is within range.…

View all 8 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

R v Geary
[2002] QCA 33

…39 NSWLR 450, considered R v Edwards [1997] 472; CA No 370 of 1997, 25 November 1997, considered R v Geary [2002] QCA 33; CA No 241 of 2001, 22 February 2002, followed R v Palmer (1998)193 CLR 1, followed R v Perussich [2001] QCA 557; CA No 169 of 2001, 7 December 2001, followed R v Stirling [1996] QCA 342; CA N…
Festa v The Queen
[2001] HCA 72

…e Queen (2000) 75 ALJR 133, considered Crosdale v The Queen (1995) 1 WLR 864, considered Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72, followed Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, applied M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied R v Basic [2000] QCA 155; CA No 11 of 2001, 3 May 2000, considered R v E (1996) 39 NSWLR 450,…
R v Perussich
[2001] QCA 557

…] QCA 33; CA No 241 of 2001, 22 February 2002, followed R v Palmer (1998)193 CLR 1, followed R v Perussich [2001] QCA 557; CA No 169 of 2001, 7 December 2001, followed R v Stirling [1996] QCA 342; CA No 205 of 1996, 17 September 1996, considered R v Uhrig (unreported) CCA (NSW) 24 Oct 1996, followed COUNSEL: A W…
Re Ruddock; Ex parte Reyes
[2000] HCA 66 Para 1

…n must be given to the principle that as a general rule, “litigants are bound by the conduct of their counsel”. See Crampton v The Queen.[16] [16](2000) 75 ALJR 133 at para 18…
R v Basic
[2000] QCA 155

…followed Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, applied M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied R v Basic [2000] QCA 155; CA No 11 of 2001, 3 May 2000, considered R v E (1996) 39 NSWLR 450, considered R v Edwards [1997] 472; CA No 370 of 1997, 25 November 1997, considered R v Geary [2002] QCA 33; CA No 241 of 20…
R v Festa
[2000] QCA 73 Para 1

…5] , I am satisfied that no substantial miscarriage occurred in this case. I would therefore apply the proviso to s.668E of the Criminal Code . [25]185 ALR 394…
Palmer v the Queen
[1998] HCA 2

…r 1997, considered R v Geary [2002] QCA 33; CA No 241 of 2001, 22 February 2002, followed R v Palmer (1998)193 CLR 1, followed R v Perussich [2001] QCA 557; CA No 169 of 2001, 7 December 2001, followed R v Stirling [1996] QCA 342; CA No 205 of 1996, 17 September 1996, considered R v Uhrig (unreported) CCA (N…
Vincent Raymond Jones v The Queen
[1997] HCA 56

…sdale v The Queen (1995) 1 WLR 864, considered Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72, followed Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, applied M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied R v Basic [2000] QCA 155; CA No 11 of 2001, 3 May 2000, considered R v E (1996) 39 NSWLR 450, considered R v Edwards [1997] 472; CA No 370 of…
Jones v The Queen
[1997] HCA 12

…33, considered Crosdale v The Queen (1995) 1 WLR 864, considered Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72, followed Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, applied M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied R v Basic [2000] QCA 155; CA No 11 of 2001, 3 May 2000, considered R v E (1996) 39 NSWLR 450, considered R v Edwards [1997] 472;…
R v Stirling
[1996] QCA 342

…93 CLR 1, followed R v Perussich [2001] QCA 557; CA No 169 of 2001, 7 December 2001, followed R v Stirling [1996] QCA 342; CA No 205 of 1996, 17 September 1996, considered R v Uhrig (unreported) CCA (NSW) 24 Oct 1996, followed COUNSEL: A W Collins for the appellant P R Smid, with J Greggery, for the respondent SO…
M v the Queen
[1994] HCA 63

…ered Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72, followed Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, applied M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied R v Basic [2000] QCA 155; CA No 11 of 2001, 3 May 2000, considered R v E (1996) 39 NSWLR 450, considered R v Edwards [1997] 472; CA No 370 of 1997, 25 November 1997, considered R v Ge…
Crampton v The Queen
[2000] HCA 6023

…n of R v Kenneth Edwards, R v Stirling and R v Basic - application refused Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 668E Crampton v The Queen (2000) 75 ALJR 133, considered Crosdale v The Queen (1995) 1 WLR 864, considered Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72, followed Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, applied M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 4…
Crosdale v The Queen
(1995) 1 WLR 864 Para 1

…al rule of criminal procedure “that a trial judge must avoid any hint of pressure on a jury to reach a verdict.”[11] [11]See Crosdale v The Queen (1995) 1 WLR 864 at 875…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

CITATION:	R v Williams [2002] QCA 211
PARTIES:	R v WILLIAMS, David Michael (applicant / appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 361 of 2001 DC No 424 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	21 June 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 May 2002
JUDGES:	Williams JA, Cullinane and Jones JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed; 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT – PROOF AND EVIDENCE – where virgin complainant was raped after being threatened by a knife – whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory because of impermissible questions relating to the complainant’s motive and prejudicial evidence concerning allegations of drug use by the appellant in the Record of Interview which was admitted - whether the failure of the defence counsel to cross-examine a particular witness caused the trial to miscarry – test in M v The Queen applied – R v E considered – Festa v The Queen followed CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURIES – DISCHARGE AND EXCUSING FROM ATTENDANCE – JURY UNABLE TO AGREE- whether learned trial judge erred in making some concluding remarks to a Black direction which might lead to putting unnecessary pressure on the jury to return a verdict CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCE – PARTICULAR CASES - whether sentence of 7 ½ years imprisonment was manifestly excessive – consideration of R v Kenneth Edwards, R v Stirling and R v Basic- application refused Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 668E Crampton v The Queen (2000) 75 ALJR 133, considered Crosdale v The Queen (1995) 1 WLR 864, considered Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72, followed Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439, applied M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied R v Basic [2000] QCA 155; CA No 11 of 2001, 3 May 2000, considered R v E (1996) 39 NSWLR 450, considered R v Edwards [1997] 472; CA No 370 of 1997, 25 November 1997, considered R v Geary [2002] QCA 33; CA No 241 of 2001, 22 February 2002, followed R v Palmer (1998)193 CLR 1, followed R v Perussich [2001] QCA 557; CA No 169 of 2001, 7 December 2001, followed R v Stirling [1996] QCA 342; CA No 205 of 1996, 17 September 1996, considered R v Uhrig (unreported) CCA (NSW) 24 Oct 1996, followed
COUNSEL:	A W Collins for the appellant P R Smid, with J Greggery, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for…