R v Williamson (No 2) - [2022] ACTSC 213

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Williamson (No 2)

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 213

Hearing Date:

23 August 2022

Decision Date:

23 August 2022

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

(i)	The ICO imposed on 13 April 2021 is cancelled;
(ii)	The offender is to serve the balance of his prison sentence commencing today and ending on 12 October 2022.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND

PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Intensive Correction Order (ICO) – where the offender has

committed an offence while serving an ICO

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 24
Crimes (Sentencing Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 65

Cases Cited:

R v Banks [2022] ACTSC 202
R v Gunner (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 300
R v Rhodes [2022] ACTSC 182
R v Williamson [2021] ACTSC 58
R v XXL [2022] ACTSC 24

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Jade Harley Williamson (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

J Melloy (Crown)

E Chen (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number(s):

SCC 192 of 2022

Elkaim J

1.       On 13 April 2021 I sentenced the offender to 18 months’ imprisonment to be served by
way of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO): R v Williamson [2021] ACTSC 58.
2. On 18 January 2022 the offender pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The matter has now been committed to the Supreme Court in order for me to determine whether to cancel the ICO pursuant to s 65 of the Crimes (Sentencing Administration) Act 2005 (ACT).
3.       If the ICO is cancelled, the parties have agreed that the offender should serve the balance of his term of imprisonment taken from the date of the cancellation. Thus, the cancellation occurring on 23 August 2022, the balance of the term of imprisonment of 51 days will also commence on 23 August 2022 and end on 12 October 2022.
4.       If I do not cancel the ICO, it will continue. There are no other options.
5.       I set out the slightly unusual facts of the original offending in the above reasons. The offending which has led to the current hearing occurred on 22 November 2021. The offender and a female person were seated in a motor vehicle. They were having an argument.
6.       The offender, apparently in frustration, threw a coffee cup at the steering wheel. It broke
into pieces one of which flew into the female person’s face, cutting her alongside her
right eye. She fled from the scene.
7.       The police were called. The offender was arrested and taken into custody. He was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He is due to be sentenced on 30 August 2022.
8.       Of some significance is that while the offender had initially complied with the demands of his ICO, he had in the period before his arrest been misbehaving. He returned a positive urinalysis…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Williamson (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 24
Case: [2022] ACTSC 213
Decision Date: 23 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williamson (No 2) involved the respondent, a prisoner, appealing against an order of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal pertained to the jurisdiction of the court to impose an intermittent community detention order. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, with the panel comprising of Justices Kaye, Weinberg, and McInerney. The respondent, Williamson, argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to impose the order in question. Specifically, he contended that the order was not an authorised order under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), and thus, the court did not have the authority to impose it.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court possessed the jurisdiction to impose the intermittent community detention order. This involved an interpretation of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and the extent to which the Supreme Court could impose orders that were not explicitly authorised under the Act. The court examined the statutory framework and the principles of statutory interpretation to determine whether the order fell within the scope of permissible orders under the Act. The court also considered the broader context of sentencing and the purpose behind the imposition of such orders.

The Court of Appeal found that the Supreme Court did have the jurisdiction to impose the intermittent community detention order. The court held that the order was authorised by the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and was within the scope of permissible orders. The court emphasised the importance of statutory interpretation in determining jurisdictional issues and noted that the Act provided the court with broad discretion in imposing appropriate orders. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the order in question was upheld. The court also noted that the respondent was to serve the balance of his prison sentence, with the intermittent community detention order being part of that sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

(i)

The ICO imposed on 13 April 2021 is cancelled;

(ii)

The offender is to serve the balance of his prison sentence commencing today and ending on 12 October 2022.

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.