R v Williams (No 2) - [2020] ACTSC 280

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Williams (No 2)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 280
Hearing Dates:	12 October 2020
DecisionDate:	12 October 2020
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	The offender is sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment with a nonparole period of two years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Breach of good behaviour order – Resentence – Attempted robbery – Robbery – Make demand with menace – Burglary – Minor theft – Attempted minor theft – Take motor vehicle without consent – Mental health condition
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 110 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 7 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 32(2) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 311, 318, 321 Road Transport (Driver Licencing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 31(1)
Cases Cited:	Fusimalohi v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 49 R v Goodge [2019] ACTSC 297 R v Howsan (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 41 R v Mailau [2018] ACTSC 187 R v Williams [2019] ACTSC 298
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jesse Dean Williams (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Saikal-Skea (Crown) J Campbell (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 36 of 2019 SCC 155, 156 of 2020

MURRELL CJ:

Introduction

On 16 October 2019, I sentenced the offender for offences of attempted robbery and aggravated robbery (committed on 30 January 2018) and taking a motor vehicle without consent (committed on 2 February 2018). I imposed a total sentence of two years and nine months’ imprisonment, suspended from 16 October 2019 on two-year good behaviour orders: R v Williams [2019] ACTSC 298.

The commission of new offences on 10 March 2020 places him in breach of the good behaviour orders imposed in relation to the offences of attempted robbery and aggravated robbery.

On 10 March 2020, the offender committed the following offences:

(a)make demand with menace, contrary to s 32(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), (maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment);
(b)burglary, contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code), (maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $224,000 or both); and
(c)take motor vehicle without consent (a Subaru vehicle), contrary to s 318 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, a fine of $80,000 or both).

In addition, he is to be sentenced for the following related offences:

(d)minor theft (keys), contrary to s 321 of the Criminal Code (maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, a fine of $8,000 or both);
(e)attempted minor theft (contents of a Mazda vehicle), contrary to s 321 of the Criminal Code (by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code, maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, a fine of $8,000 or both); and
(f)drive unlicenced, contrary to s 31(1) of the Road Transport (Driver Licencing) Act 1999 (ACT) (maximum penalty of a fine of $3,200).

Pleas were entered on 24 July 2020, the 11^th mention…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Williams (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 280
Case: [2020] ACTSC 280
Decision Date: 12 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams (No 2) involved the offender, Williams, who was subject to resentencing by the Supreme Court of Victoria following a breach of a good behaviour order. Williams had previously been found guilty of a range of criminal offences, including attempted robbery, robbery, making a demand with menace, burglary, minor theft, attempted minor theft, and taking a motor vehicle without consent. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account Williams' mental health condition.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Williams, given his extensive criminal history and mental health condition. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing, including the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality, while also taking into account the specific circumstances of the offences and the offender. The court was also required to consider the impact of Williams' mental health condition on his culpability and the appropriate response to his offending behaviour.

The court found that the appropriate sentence for Williams was 42 months’ imprisonment with a nonparole period of two years. The court considered the severity and circumstances of the offences, as well as the offender's criminal history and mental health condition. The court found that imprisonment was necessary to adequately address the seriousness of the offences and to protect the community. The court also found that the sentence should be sufficiently severe to provide an appropriate level of deterrence, but not so severe as to be disproportionate to the offences committed. The court took into account the offender's mental health condition in determining the appropriate sentence, but found that this did not significantly mitigate his culpability or the need for a custodial sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment with a nonparole period of two years.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.