R v Williams - [1994] QCA 296

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 296

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 156 of 1994
Brisbane [R. v. Williams]

T H E Q U E E N
v.

MARK WILLIAMS (Applicant)

________________________________________________________________

MCPHERSON J.A.

DAVIES J.A. AMBROSE J.

________________________________________________________________

J	udgment delivered 16/08/1994

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF MCPHERSON J.A. AND AMBROSE J.,
DAVIES J.A. SEPARATELY, ALL CONCURRING AS TO THE ORDERS TO BE
MADE.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICATION GRANTED. APPEAL ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF ADDING A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE AFTER
SERVING FIFTEEN MONTHS OF THE SENTENCES IMPOSED; OTHERWISE, THE
SENTENCES IMPOSED TO STAND.
________________________________________________________________
_

CATCHWORDS:CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - drug offences - for each of three counts of supply and one of possession of heroin applicant sentenced to four years' imprisonment -lesser terms for other offences - in respect of counts of supply co-offender received suspended sentences - substantial quantity of heroin - a number of offences committed whilst applicant was on bail in respect of earlier counts - applicant became addict in consequence of medical treatment - apparently genuine and successful attempts to rehabilitate himself - dealing in heroin was to facilitate his own habit, rather than with motive of profit - no previous convictions - whether sentences manifestly excessive - whether recommendation for early parole appropriate.

Counsel:The Applicant in person

Mr P. Callaghan for the Respondent

Solicitors:The Director of Prosecutions for the Respondent
Date(s) of Hearing:4 August 1994
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 156 of 1994

Brisbane

Before

McPherson J.A.
Davies J.A.
Ambrose J.

[R. v. Williams]

BETWEEN

T H E Q U E E N
v.
MARK WILLIAMS

(Applicant)

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A. & AMBROSE J.
Judgment delivered the Sixteenth day of August 1994

We agree with the reasons for judgment of Davies J.A. and with the order he proposes.

Because we are differing from the learned sentencing judge below, we think that we should say that the circumstances that particularly influence us are that the applicant has no previous convictions; that he is himself an addict who acquired the habit in consequence of medical treatment for an industrial injury sustained some years ago; that, although he dealt in substantial quantities, there is no sufficient evidence to suggest that he did so except for the purpose of satisfying his and his co-accused's addiction; that he has recently been making what seems to be a genuine and apparently successful effort to rid himself of the addiction; and that the sentence imposed on his co-accused was lenient involving as it did a suspended sentence without any period of detention.

For all these reasons, as well as others identified by Davies J.A., we agree that the application and appeal should be allowed.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 156 of 1994
Brisbane
BeforeMcPherson J.A. Davies J.A. Ambrose J.
[R. v. Williams]

T H E Q U E E N
v.

MARK WILLIAMS (Applicant)

REASONS…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Williams and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1994] QCA 296
Decision Date: 16/08/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williams, the applicant, Mark Williams, was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for multiple drug-related offences, including supplying and possessing heroin and supplying cannabis. Williams appealed against the sentences, arguing they were manifestly excessive, and applied for a recommendation for early parole. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent of adding a recommendation that Williams be eligible for parole after serving 15 months of his sentences. The appeal was dismissed in all other respects, and the sentences imposed by the trial judge were upheld.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the sentences imposed on the applicant were manifestly excessive, and whether a recommendation for early parole was appropriate. The Court of Appeal found that while the sentences were within the range of those typically imposed for such offences, the applicant's personal circumstances warranted a recommendation for early parole. These circumstances included his lack of previous convictions, his addiction which stemmed from medical treatment, his efforts to overcome his addiction, and the lenient sentences given to his co-offenders.

The Court of Appeal judges considered various factors in reaching their decision. They noted that Williams had no prior criminal record and had become addicted to heroin due to medical treatment for an injury. The court also recognised that although Williams dealt in substantial quantities of heroin, it appeared he did so primarily to fund his own addiction rather than for profit. Additionally, Williams had made genuine attempts to overcome his addiction, including successful participation in a methadone program at the time of sentencing. The judges concluded that these factors, along with the leniency shown to his co-offenders, warranted a recommendation for early parole. They emphasised that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and should otherwise stand.

Orders