R v Williamson - [2021] ACTSC 58

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Williamson
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 58
Hearing Date:	13 April 2021
Decision Date:	13 April 2021
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [30]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – intensive corrections order – excessive self defence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 25 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 6, 7, 10, 33
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jade Harley Williamson (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
K Marson (Crown)
B Morrisroe (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Boxall Legal (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 192 of 2020
ELKAIM J:

1. On 25 February 2021, the offender was arraigned on an indictment, containing a single count, dated 17 February 2021. He pleaded guilty to the charge of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (SCCAN2021/19). The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 5 years.
2.       The detailed facts are contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts which forms part of
Exhibit A. The following is a summary: On 30 May 2020 a Mr Curtin went to his friend’s

18th birthday party. He had a great deal to drink, mixing both beer and spirits. He
became drunk.
3.       At about 11:00pm, now thoroughly drunk, Mr Curtin was walking home. He decided to supplement his intoxication with cannabis. He went to a house in Charnwood which he
knew to be the residence of a ‘dealer’. He asked the dealer, Ms T, to sell him some
cannabis. She told him that she had amended her ways and no longer sold this drug. Mr Curtin did not take this information well and an argument developed. Mr Curtin was
particularly concerned that Ms T’s comments were of a racist nature.
4.       Ms T came outside, via a window (because her door was broken) and continued the argument. Once again Mr Curtin thought her comments were racially inspired. He
pushed her. She responded “don’t push me”. At this stage the offender, who had been

inside the house, intervened. Holding a knife he stood between the two, thus far, verbal
combatants.
5.       Mr Curtin punched the offender in the face and put him in a headlock. He held the
offender’s hand (which had hold of the knife) as far away as he could. The offender

continued to struggle with Mr Curtin and was able to free his knife wielding extremity
and thrust the knife at Mr Curtin. He missed.
6.       The combat between the offender and Mr Curtin continued on the ground. Mr Curtin
punched the offender several times and thrust his knee into the offender’s mouth.
7.       Ms T then joined the melee and began kicking Mr Curtin to his head. She followed by trying to put her fingers in his eyes. At the same time Mr Curtin had once again taken hold of the hand holding the knife. The fight continued with exchanges of unpleasantries, wrestling and traded punches. In the course…

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 [2021] ACTSC 58
Case: [2021] ACTSC 58
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the case of R v Williamson was heard and decided on 13 April 2021, before Elkaim J. The offender, Jade Harley Williamson, was arraigned on 25 February 2021 on a charge of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm contrary to section 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), to which he pleaded guilty. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 5 years.

The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate sentence for the offender, who had entered a guilty plea on the basis of excessive self-defence. The court was required to consider various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's background, the principles of sentencing, and the appropriateness of an Intensive Corrections Order.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the events leading up to the offence, the offender's remorse, and his plea of guilty. It also noted the offender's intent to cease using cannabis and reduce his alcohol consumption. The court found that while the offender's actions were excessive, the circumstances justified a less stringent approach. The court decided that an Intensive Corrections Order was appropriate, taking into account the offender's plea, the seriousness of the crime, and the offender's willingness to address his substance abuse issues.

The final orders of the court were that the offender be sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, to be served in the community by way of an Intensive Corrections Order, effective from the date of sentencing and to end on 12 October 2022.

Orders