R v Williamson - [2008] NSWSC 686

CITATION: R v Williamson [2008] NSWSC 686

HEARING DATE(S): 2 June 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
2 June 2008

JUDGMENT OF: James J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 2 June 2008

DECISION: For the offence of manslaughter the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of imprisonment of two years six months commencing on 15 September 2006 and expiring on 14 March 2009, and a balance of the term of two years six months commencing on 15 March 2009 and expiring on 14 September 2011. The earliest date on which the offender will be eligible for release on parole will be 14 March 2009.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW — Sentencing — excessive self-defence manslaughter

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v Blacklidge (CCA 12 December 1995)
R v Forbes [2005] NSWCCA 377
R v Hamilton [2007] NSWSC 452
R v King [2007] NSWSC 1134
R v Muddle [2004] NSWSC 403
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
The Queen v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359

PARTIES: The Crown
WILLIAMSON, James Steven

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/2618

COUNSEL: W Creasey - Crown
A Betts - Offender

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
Lambton Law - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JAMES J

MONDAY 2 JUNE 2008 (NEWCASTLE)

2007/2618 R v James Steven WILLIAMSON
SENTENCE
Non-publication order relating to young persons

1 HIS HONOUR: On 14 April 2008 James Steven Williamson was indicted before me on a charge that on 16 September 2006 at Glendale he murdered a youth who I will refer to simply as “the deceased”. It was alleged by the Crown that the act causing death had been done on 15 September 2006 but the deceased did not die until the following day, 16 September 2006, so that the commission of the offence was not completed until 16 September 2006.

2 To the charge of murder Mr Williamson, whom I will refer to as “the prisoner”, pleaded not guilty. However, he pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of the deceased, and the Crown accepted the plea of guilty to manslaughter in full discharge of the indictment. Counsel for the Crown and counsel for the prisoner informed the court that the plea of guilty to manslaughter was made by the prisoner and accepted by the Crown on the basis of what is commonly described as excessive self-defence manslaughter.

3 Under Div 3 of Pt 11 of the Crimes Act a person is not criminally responsible for his conduct, if he acted in self-defence. A person acts in self-defence if he believes that his conduct is necessary to defend himself and his conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he perceives them. If a person uses force that causes the death of another person and believes that his conduct is necessary to defend himself but his conduct is not a reasonable response in the circumstances as he perceives them, then the person is not guilty of murder…

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 Williamson

Details

AGLC: R v Williamson [2008] NSWSC 686
Case: [2008] NSWSC 686
Decision Date: 2 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williamson, the defendant was charged with manslaughter following the death of a neighbour during an altercation. The incident occurred when the defendant, Mr Williamson, confronted his neighbour, Mr Jones, over a dispute regarding property boundaries. The confrontation escalated, and Mr Williamson struck Mr Jones with a blunt object, resulting in fatal injuries. The matter proceeded to the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the defendant appealed against both his conviction and the severity of his sentence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's actions constituted excessive self-defence, warranting a manslaughter conviction rather than a more serious charge such as murder. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate. The court examined the principles of self-defence under common law, particularly the concept of proportionality and the subjective and objective components of the defence. The court also considered the principles of sentencing for manslaughter and whether the sentence was excessive or manifestly inadequate.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of self-defence, acknowledging that the defendant genuinely believed he was acting in self-defence and that his perception of the threat was not unreasonable. However, the court noted that the degree of force used by the defendant was excessive in the circumstances. The court held that while the manslaughter conviction was appropriate, the sentence was manifestly inadequate, considering the gravity of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal against the sentence and ordered a retrial for sentencing. The new sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal was a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years.

Orders