R v Williams - [2008] VSCA 95

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 398 of 2007

THE QUEEN

GEORGE LESLIE WILLIAMS

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and VINCENT JJA and OSBORN AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 May 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 June 2008
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSCA 95

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Ill health of appellant – Crown submission as to appropriate sentence – Plea of guilty – Head sentence and non parole period not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle QC	Ms A Cannon Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr L C Carter	Garde-Wilson Lawyers

BUCHANAN JA:

I agree with Osborn AJA.

VINCENT JA:

I agree that the appeal against sentence should be dismissed for the reasons given by Osborn AJA in his judgment.

OSBORN AJA:

The appellant is a 61 year old man who pleaded guilty on 8 October 2007 to one count of trafficking in methylamphetamine, in a quantity that was not less than a commercial quantity, between 11 December 2002 and 27 July 2004.

The appellant’s plea was entered in unusual circumstances. He was initially charged with the offence of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, but agreed to plead to the present charge as part of an arrangement reached between the Office of Public Prosecutions and those representing not only himself but also his son Carl. That agreement is evidenced by an email sent by the prosecutor to counsel for Carl Williams which provided in part:

7.George Williams will plead to a “commercial quantity”. On the basis that he demonstrates ill-health we will say a suspended sentence is within the range. He will agree to a PPO of $108,000.[1]

[1] The email recorded further:

When the matter came on for plea the prosecutor made the following submission to the sentencing judge.

Your Honour, I need to say this. As you know Carl Williams ultimately pleaded guilty to a number of offences; the murders of Jason Moran, Mark [Mallia], Lewis Moran and the conspiracy to murder Mario Condello.
…
And Your Honour was told at the time of that plea by Mr Ross, senior counsel appearing for Williams, that the Crown conceded that that cleared the slate as far as Carl Williams was concerned and that's so. There were discussions with lawyers representing Carl Williams that led up to that plea as Your Honour will appreciate. At that time, that is in February or so of 2007, the Crown conceded in relation to the prisoner that should he be able to demonstrate significant ill health, the Crown would submit to the court in all the circumstances, that is, in relation to [witness “X”] in his position in relation to what would happen to Carl Williams, in that a wholly suspended sentence was within the range relation to the sentence Your Honour might impose. Now to that end, the Crown has been supplied with four medical reports on behalf of the prisoner.…

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 [2008] VSCA 95
Case: [2008] VSCA 95
Decision Date: 6 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williams, the appellant, Williams, stood before the court following a plea of guilty to charges of serious criminal activity. The primary concern of the court was to determine an appropriate sentence, given the appellant's advanced ill health. The Crown argued for a sentence that would appropriately reflect the gravity of the crimes committed, while also considering the appellant's health condition. The court was tasked with balancing these competing interests to arrive at a just outcome.

The legal issues before the court were to determine the appropriate head sentence and non-parole period, taking into account the appellant's plea of guilty and his health condition. The court needed to assess whether the sentence proposed by the Crown was appropriate, or if it was manifestly excessive given the circumstances. This involved a careful consideration of the principles of sentencing, particularly the need for punishment and deterrence, as well as the need for rehabilitation and consideration of the appellant's health.

The court meticulously examined the nature and gravity of the crimes committed, the appellant's health condition, and the submissions made by both the Crown and the defence. It concluded that the sentence proposed by the Crown, while severe, was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crimes, while also taking into account the appellant's health. Consequently, the court upheld the sentence as proposed by the Crown, affirming that it was just and proportionate under the circumstances.

The court's final orders were to confirm the sentence imposed by the Crown, including the head sentence and the non-parole period. The court emphasised that the sentence was appropriate given the totality of the circumstances, including the appellant's health and the need to uphold the principles of justice and deterrence. The court's decision was based on a balanced consideration of all relevant factors, ensuring that the sentence was neither too lenient nor excessively harsh.

Orders