R v Williams - [1995] QCA 522

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 522
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 362 of 1995.

Brisbane

[R v. Williams]

T H E Q U E E N

GARRY JOHN WILLIAMS

(Applicant)

_____________________________________________________________________

Macrossan C.J.
Davies J.A.
Pincus J.A.

_____________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 28/11/1995

Judgment of the Court
_____________________________________________________________________

1.         APPLICATION GRANTED.
2.         APPEAL ALLOWED.
3.         ALL THE SENTENCES IMPOSED ON 8 AUGUST 1995 ARE TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY.
4.         THE SENTENCES IN RESPECT OF ARMED ROBBERY AND ARMED ROBBERY IN COMPANY COMMITTED IN DECEMBER 1994 ARE INCREASED FROM 12 YEARS TO 15 YEARS.
5.         THE APPLICANT IS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE ON PAROLE ON 8 FEBRUARY 2002.
6.         OTHERWISE, THE SENTENCES IMPOSED ON 8 AUGUST 1995 ARE CONFIRMED.

___________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - cumulative sentences imposed at trial - totality principle - relevance of time between sets of offences, whether total term, if sentences made cumulative, is excessive. Mill (1988) 166 C.L.R. 59 Clements (1993) 68 A.Crim.R.167.
Counsel:	Mr B Butler for the applicant. Mr S Hamlyn-Harris for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the applicant. Legal Aid Office for the respondent.
Hearing date:	21 November 1995.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 28/11/1995

The applicant was recently sentenced in the District Court to a total of 18 years imprisonment for numerous offences committed in 1992 and 1994, the most serious of which were three armed robberies. Prior to commission of the offences for which he was thus sentenced the applicant had a bad criminal record. But Mr Hamlyn-Harris contends on his behalf that the total of 18 years imprisonment is excessive; it is certainly a long sentence.

The applicant is now 38; he was 35 and 37 years of age when the offences in question were committed. Some details of them should be given, but it is unnecessary to describe them all comprehensively. The earlier group consisted of house-breaking, breaking, entering and stealing, stealing and burglary committed at a house in Bundaberg. The appellant broke into the house while the owner was away; the owner’s brother then visited the house and found, in the language of the prosecutor below, "that the kitchen window had been jemmied open, the house had been completely ransacked, property had been strewn everywhere and some $1,200 worth of electrical equipment and jewellery and so on had been taken". A shed had also been broken into and property taken from there. On the following night an offence of burglary was committed at the same house, but on that occasion the police were called; unfortunately a search of the appellant’s residence did not then bring the stolen property to light and he was let go. In fact the property which had been stolen was at premises of an accomplice of the appellant and was located much later.

Four other 1992 offences consisted of house-breaking and an associated stealing, stealing from a dingy and an offence of false pretences consisting in selling stolen property. In respect of…

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 [1995] QCA 522
Case: [1995] QCA 522
Decision Date: 28/11/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams involved the defendant appealing against his sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant was found guilty of multiple serious offences committed over a period of time, leading to a discussion about the cumulative nature of his sentences and whether they were excessive. The court was tasked with determining whether the total term of the sentences, when made cumulative, was appropriate under the totality principle.

The central legal issue was whether the cumulative sentences imposed on the defendant for his multiple offences were excessive. This involved a consideration of the time elapsed between the sets of offences and whether this period should influence the cumulative term of the sentences. The court had to assess if the total term of the sentences, when made cumulative, adhered to the totality principle, which requires that the total punishment should not be disproportionate to the overall gravity of the offences committed.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the defendant's multiple serious offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. However, it also considered the principle that the punishment should fit the crime and be proportionate to the gravity of the offences. The court found that while the offences were serious, the cumulative sentence, when considered in light of the time between the sets of offences, did not result in an excessive total term. The reasoning was based on the need to balance the interests of justice with the principle that the punishment should not be disproportionate. The court concluded that the cumulative sentences were appropriate and did not constitute an excessive punishment under the totality principle.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant's appeal against his sentence was dismissed, and the cumulative sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria were upheld. The court found that the total term of the sentences, when made cumulative, was proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed, taking into account the relevant principles of sentencing.

Orders