Legal Research
Cases
R v Williams; R v Roberts

R v Williams; R v Roberts

Case [2014] NSWDC 374 28 November 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v WILLIAMS; R v ROBERTS [2014] NSWDC 374
Hearing dates: 07/08/2014 and 10/10/2014
Decision date: 28 November 2014
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Roberts -
Indictment: Count 1 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 3 months with a non parole period being 2 years.
Count 2 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 3 months with a non parole period being 2 years.
Other charges: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non parole period being 2 years and 9 months.
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 6.
Williams –
Indictment: Count 1 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non parole period being 2 years and 5 months
Count 2 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non parole period being 2 years and 5 months
Other Charges: - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non parole period being 3 years and 3 months
2^nd Indictment - Count 1 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non parole period being 1 year
Count 2 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years with a non parole period being 1 year
S166 Certificate – related charges - - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months.
Pursuant s.10A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 no penalty is recorded.

Catchwords: Criminal – Sentence, armed robbery with a dangerous weapon, Aboriginal offenders, parity, "social exclusion" and racism, standard non-parole period.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46
R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37
R v Callaghan (2006) 160 A Crim R 145
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162
Jimmy v R (2010) 77 NSWLR 540
Moffitt v R (1990) 20 NSWLR 114
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
Munda v Western Australia ([2013] HCA 38
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v R [1997] HCA 26
R v Fernando ((1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Millwood [2012]
SS v R [2009] NSWCCA 114
Veen (No 2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465
R v Lewis [2014] NSWSC 1127
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Matthew Thomas Williams - Offender
Shaun Michael Roberts - Offender
Representation:
Counsel:

Mr King – Williams
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown
Aboriginal Legal Service - Offenders

File Number(s): Williams – 2013/313422; 277453; 313291 Roberts – 2013/264487; 335084; 341559

sentence

INTRODUCTION

HIS HONOUR: Two men appear before me for sentence today. They are Shaun Roberts who was born on 8 April 1991…

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; R v Roberts

Details

AGLC: R v Williams; R v Roberts [2014] NSWDC 374
Case: [2014] NSWDC 374
Decision Date: 28 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williams; R v Roberts, the Supreme Court of New South Wales addressed the sentencing of two Aboriginal offenders convicted of armed robbery with a dangerous weapon. The defendants, Williams and Roberts, had been charged with multiple counts of armed robbery and were convicted on several charges. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences, considering various legal principles, including the need for parity, the impact of social exclusion and racism on the offenders' circumstances, and the standard non-parole period for the crimes committed.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the appropriate application of sentencing principles to ensure that the sentences reflected the gravity of the offences while also considering the defendants' backgrounds. The court had to evaluate whether the standard non-parole periods for armed robbery with a dangerous weapon were applicable or if they should be adjusted in light of the offenders' socio-economic backgrounds and the systemic issues contributing to their offending behaviour. Additionally, the court needed to address the defendants' extensive criminal histories and the principle of parity, which required that similar offences be met with similar sentences.

The court deliberated on the necessity to impose sentences that would serve the purposes of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation, while also acknowledging the systemic disadvantages faced by Aboriginal offenders. The sentencing judge took into account the aggravating factors of the offences, the use of a dangerous weapon, and the defendants' previous criminal records. However, the court also recognised the importance of addressing the broader social issues impacting the defendants' lives, such as social exclusion and systemic racism. Ultimately, the court determined that while the standard non-parole periods were a starting point, adjustments were necessary to reflect the unique circumstances of the offenders. The sentences imposed sought to balance the need for punishment with an acknowledgment of the defendants' disadvantaged backgrounds.

The final orders of the court specified the sentences for each count of the indictments against both defendants, with adjustments to the non-parole periods where appropriate. Williams and Roberts were each sentenced to terms of imprisonment with non-parole periods reflecting the court's consideration of both the seriousness of the crimes and the defendants' socio-economic circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Roberts -

Indictment: Count 1 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 3 months with a non parole period being 2 years.

Count 2 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 3 months with a non parole period being 2 years.

Other charges: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non parole period being 2 years and 9 months.

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 6.

Williams –

Indictment: Count 1 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non parole period being 2 years and 5 months

Count 2 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non parole period being 2 years and 5 months

Other Charges: - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non parole period being 3 years and 3 months

2nd Indictment - Count 1 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non parole period being 1 year

Count 2 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years with a non parole period being 1 year

S166 Certificate – related charges - - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months.

Pursuant s.10A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 no penalty is recorded.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Williams; R v Roberts [2014] NSWDC 374

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

R v Lewis
[2014] NSWSC 1127 Para 106

…nge and Baumeister, were the subject of comment by his Honour Rothman J in the sentencing of Mr Lewis for murder earlier this year ([2014] NSWSC 1127).…
Munda v Western Australia
[2013] HCA 38 Para 113

…Observations may also be cited from the case of Munda v Western Australia ([2013] HCA 38) concerning the disinhibiting and emotionally neutralising effect of an environment of deprivation.…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 112

…Reference was also made to the decision of Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37, noting the observations of the High Court at [43] - [44], that the experience of growing up in an environment of alcohol abuse and violence may leave its mark on a person for life as will the effects of profound childhood deprivation.…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 168

…itted to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence for the offender. In this regard of course I note the decision of Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120, where the majority of the High Court held, leading to the statutory regime we now have, that consistent with “ Markarian principles” the standard no…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa
[2010] NSWCCA 194 Para 118

…Reference was also made to the observations of McClellan J in DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177]. In that case his Honour specifically summarised the principles that relate to the sentencing of an offender suffering from a mental illness, intellectual handicap or other mental problems.…
Jackson v R
[2010] NSWCCA 162 Para 124

…particular supervision and guidance in a range of areas. In relation to the issue of institutionalisation I was taken to the decision of Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162, particularly at [25]. It was ultimately submitted I should not impose a crushing sentence.…
Jimmy v R
[2010] NSWCCA 60 Para 152

…al Officers’ Bulletin April 2014) addressed the matter of equal justice in the context of parity of sentencing in the decision of Jimmy v R (2010) 77 NSWLR 540, particularly at [254] - [266].…
Ss v R; JC v R
[2009] NSWCCA 114 Para 116

…e by the age of 17 or 18 set the scene for an understanding of the circumstances of the commission of crimes to obtain money to obtain drugs ( SS v R [2009] NSWCCA 114). The occurrence of drug addiction at a very young age has been recognised as an exception to the general rule laid down in the matters discussed by…
R v Blackman and Walters
[2001] NSWCCA 121

…le period. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Cases Cited: Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46 R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 R v Callaghan (2006) 160 A Crim R 145 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 Jackson v R [2010]…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCA 111 Para 116

…drug addiction at a very young age has been recognised as an exception to the general rule laid down in the matters discussed by Wood J in R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, particularly (at [273]) when his Honour discussed, if I might call them, the qualifications to the general proposition that drug use or addiction do…
Pearce v The Queen
[1998] HCA 57 Para 101

…It was submitted and I rightly take it into account the issue of totality of sentencing as discussed by the High Court for example in Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610, particularly in the majority judgment at [45] and the Court of Criminal Appeal judgment of [2000] of Hammoud . I need to take into account the sentencing…
Postiglione v the Queen
[1997] HCA 26

…v R (1990) 20 NSWLR 114 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 Munda v Western Australia ([2013] HCA 38 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 Postiglione v R [1997] HCA 26 R v Fernando ((1992) 76 A Crim R 58 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Millwood [2012] SS v R [2009] NSWCCA 114 Veen (No 2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465 R…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14

…] HCA 26 R v Fernando ((1992) 76 A Crim R 58 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Millwood [2012] SS v R [2009] NSWCCA 114 Veen (No 2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465 R v Lewis [2014] NSWSC 1127 Category: Sentence Parties: Crown Matthew Thomas Williams - Offender Shaun Michael Roberts - Offender Representation: Counsel:…
Lowe v R
[1984] HCA 46

…lusion" and racism, standard non-parole period. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Cases Cited: Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46 R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 R v Callaghan (2006) 160 A Crim R 145 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 R v Engert…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 117)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 4)
Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 170)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v WILLIAMS; R v ROBERTS [2014] NSWDC 374
Hearing dates:	07/08/2014 and 10/10/2014
Decision date:	28 November 2014
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Roberts - Indictment: Count 1 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 3 months with a non parole period being 2 years. Count 2 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 3 months with a non parole period being 2 years. Other charges: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non parole period being 2 years and 9 months. Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 6. Williams – Indictment: Count 1 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non parole period being 2 years and 5 months Count 2 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non parole period being 2 years and 5 months Other Charges: - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non parole period being 3 years and 3 months 2^nd Indictment - Count 1 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non parole period being 1 year Count 2 - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years with a non parole period being 1 year S166 Certificate – related charges - - Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months. Pursuant s.10A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 no penalty is recorded.
Catchwords:	Criminal – Sentence, armed robbery with a dangerous weapon, Aboriginal offenders, parity, "social exclusion" and racism, standard non-parole period.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Lowe v R [1984] HCA 46 R v Blackman & Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 R v Callaghan (2006) 160 A Crim R 145 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162 Jimmy v R (2010) 77 NSWLR 540 Moffitt v R (1990) 20 NSWLR 114 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 Munda v Western Australia ([2013] HCA 38 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 Postiglione v R [1997] HCA 26 R v Fernando ((1992) 76 A Crim R 58 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Millwood [2012] SS v R [2009] NSWCCA 114 Veen (No 2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465 R v Lewis [2014] NSWSC 1127
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Crown Matthew Thomas Williams - Offender Shaun Michael Roberts - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Mr King – Williams Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown Aboriginal Legal Service - Offenders
File Number(s):	Williams – 2013/313422; 277453; 313291 Roberts – 2013/264487; 335084; 341559