R v Williams - [2007] VSCA 208

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 216 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v
PAUL ANDREW STEWART WILLIAMS

---

JUDGES:	CHERNOV and REDLICH JJA and KING AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	11 October 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 September 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 208

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Adequacy of directions – Accomplice warning – Whether dangerous witness direction required – Corroboration – Sufficiency of evidence.

SENTENCING –Tsiaras principles – Amelioration of sentence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D A Trapnell	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr G F Meredith	Victoria Legal Aid

CHERNOV JA
REDLICH JA:

We have had the benefit of reading the draft reasons for judgment of King AJA in this matter. The circumstances giving rise to the applicant’s trial and the appeal are fully set out in her Honour’s reasons, as are the issues that were argued on appeal.

We agree that, essentially for the reasons given by her Honour, there is no substance in ground 1 that alleged inadequacy in her Honour’s directions to the jury concerning their consideration of the evidence of Anderson. We can discern no deficiency in the judge’s charge. It adequately dealt with the need for, and what may constitute, corroboration of Anderson’s evidence, the assessment of his evidence in light of his role in respect of the armed robbery, the potential for his being re-sentenced, that he had received a sentencing discount and that he was committed to give a version of events at trial. We also consider that, as her Honour said, the accomplice warning given by the trial judge in relation to Anderson was sufficient. In relation to the matters summarised in her Honour’s reasons concerning Anderson’s position that were highlighted in argument by the applicant’s counsel, we are also of the opinion that, as her Honour explained, no special directions were required by the trial judge

Under cover of ground 2, it was claimed that the trial judge erred in leaving to the jury, as evidence capable of amounting to corroboration, the applicant’s answer in his record of interview that he thought the getaway car was blue. In our view, essentially for the reasons given by her Honour, there is no substance in the complaint.

In the result, and given that ground 3 was not pressed, we agree with her Honour that the application for leave to appeal against a conviction should be refused.

We consider that the same fate should befall the application for leave to appeal against sentence. Primarily for the reasons given by her Honour, the trial judge, we think, did not engage in a two step sentencing process as was claimed by the applicant’s counsel. Similarly, we consider that in sentencing the applicant, contrary to the submission of his counsel, the trial judge sufficiently took into account his mental condition both in moderating general and specific deterrence and in considering the impact of imprisonment upon him. There is nothing on…

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 [2007] VSCA 208
Case: [2007] VSCA 208
Decision Date: 26 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Williams, the dispute involved the adequacy of the directions provided to the jury regarding the testimony of an accomplice and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Williams, was convicted of several serious criminal offences and sought to appeal on the basis that the trial judge had failed to adequately direct the jury on certain matters, including the necessity of a dangerous witness direction and the need for corroboration.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in not providing a dangerous witness direction and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction without such a direction. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have directed the jury that the accomplice's evidence was so dangerous that it required corroboration before it could be acted upon. Additionally, the appellant contended that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the conviction without such corroboration.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the trial judge did not err in failing to give a dangerous witness direction. The court determined that the evidence was of such a nature that it did not necessitate such a direction. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, even in the absence of corroboration. The court further noted that the jury was adequately directed on the need for caution in considering the evidence of an accomplice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld. The court did not find it necessary to grant any amelioration of sentence under the Tsiaras principles.

Orders