R v Williams (Sentence) - [2012] VSC 643

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. S CR 0070 of 2012

THE QUEEN

GORDON LINDSAY WILLIAMS

---

JUDGE:	MACAULAY J
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	4 October 2012, 7 December 2012
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 December 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v WILLIAMS (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 643

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty – Significance of disadvantaged background – Intellectual disability attracting principles in R v Verdins – Sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 6.5 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.R. Champion SC with Ms K. Swadesir	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. C. Hallowes	Robert Stary Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Gordon Lindsay Williams, you pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter, having killed Sidney Thomas Thorpe on 3 December 2011. It is my task to sentence you for your crime.

Sadly, the details of your crime are all too simple. I will give a brief summary of them.

You and your victim, Sidney Thorpe, were related. Sidney’s mother, Jacqueline, and your father, Colin, were first cousins. Additionally, in the 1990’s you had been in a seven year long de facto relationship with Sidney’s younger sister, Rowena, and together you and she had had two children. Only one now survives: Jamal, aged 14 years.

On the morning of 3 December 2011 a number of people arrived at the home of Diane Jones in Buffalo Avenue, Corio. Ms Jones is Sidney’s maternal aunt. You and your partner of some months, Sue Proctor arrived, each of you described by some others as being already intoxicated. After leaving briefly to purchase a cask of wine, you began drinking that wine. Before you arrived, Rowena’s current boyfriend had arrived and laid down to have a rest in a bedroom.

In the early afternoon, a group including Sidney Thorpe arrived. With him came his uncle, Joseph Jones, his cousin, Charmaine and her partner Peter, and your son Jamal together with one of his friends. Some tension had existed between you and Sidney previously. Sidney is alleged to have told Peter, upon learning you would be at the house, that you had confronted him with two knives only a week earlier.

Nevertheless, after some initial tension upon Sidney’s arrival at the house, the two of you settled down to drinking together in the dining area of the house, and the atmosphere relaxed. But after a period of time, probably an hour or so, a verbal disagreement broke out between you. It seems to have started when Sidney said certain things to your partner, Sue, to which you took offence.

You removed your shirt and pushed Sidney in the chest with both of your hands. He responded by removing his shirt, and pushing you back in a similar manner. When he walked away from you, you struck him on the side of his head with your elbow. He retaliated…

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 (Sentence)

Details

AGLC: R v Williams (Sentence) [2012] VSC 0
Case: [2012] VSC 643
Decision Date: 21 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams involved the sentencing of the defendant, Williams, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The circumstances surrounding the crime were not detailed in the summary provided, but the court acknowledged Williams' disadvantaged background and intellectual disability in determining the appropriate sentence. The case was heard and decided by the court, whose name was not specified in the summary. The central issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Williams, taking into account his background and disability.

The court needed to balance the severity of the offence with the mitigating factors presented by Williams' circumstances. This involved considering the principles established in R v Verdins, which provide guidance on sentencing individuals with intellectual disabilities. The court also had to determine an appropriate non-parole period to ensure public safety while considering the rehabilitation potential of Williams. The court's decision was influenced by the plea of guilty and the recognition of the disadvantages Williams faced in life.

In arriving at its decision, the court carefully weighed the factors presented. It concluded that an 8-year sentence with a non-parole period of 6.5 years was appropriate. This decision reflected the seriousness of the crime but also took into account the mitigating factors related to Williams' background and disability. The court's reasoning demonstrated a careful consideration of both the needs of the community and the individual circumstances of the offender. The final orders of the court were that Williams be sentenced to 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6.5 years.

Orders