R v Wilson; R v Beath-Williams - [2022] ACTSC 20

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Wilson; R v Beath-Williams
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 20
Hearing Date:	2 February 2022
DecisionDate:	2 February 2022
Before:	Norrish AJ
Decision:	See [108]-[109]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – reckless wounding – aggravated robbery – co-accused – disadvantaged background – drug and alcohol dependence – Bugmy principles – parity – totality of criminality – breach of conditional liberty – vulnerable victim
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 19, 20 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 10, 12, 33, 35, 36 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 45
Cases Cited:	Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59 Millard v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 20 R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Ashleigh Wayne Wilson (Offender) Andrew James Francis Beath-Williams (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Jerome (Crown) J Sabharwal (Offender – Wilson) J White SC (Offender – Beath-Williams)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Tim Sharman Solicitors (Offender – Wilson) Legal Aid ACT (Offender – Beath-Williams)
File Numbers:	SCC 139 of 2021 SCC 140 of 2021

NORRISH AJ:

Two prisoners appear before me today for sentence. One prisoner is Andrew James Francis Beath-Williams, who appears for sentence in relation to a charge to which he pleaded guilty last year, that he on 1 October 2020 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory was knowingly concerned in the reckless infliction of grievous bodily harm upon Petar Matic by another person Ashley Wilson, the co-accused. This is an offence contrary to a combination of s 20 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act) and s 45 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code) and, I am informed by the learned Crown prosecutor, has a maximum penalty of 13 years' imprisonment.

Mr Ashleigh Wilson appears for sentence in relation to two offences to which he pleaded guilty in October last year. One offence is the offence of, on 1 October 2020, intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm upon Peter Matic and a second offence, related in time and very intimately connected with the facts of the first matter, of committing robbery in company with one or more persons and, at the time, being in possession of an offensive weapon, or aggravated robbery as it is described. The intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm offence, contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act, carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment. The aggravated robbery carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $400,000.

I have accorded in the fixing…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Wilson; R v Beath-Williams and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] ACTSC 20
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Ashleigh Wayne Wilson and Andrew James Francis Beath-Williams appeared before Justice Norrish for sentencing following their respective guilty pleas to charges related to a violent incident. Wilson was charged with aggravated robbery and intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, while Beath-Williams was charged with being knowingly concerned in the reckless infliction of grievous bodily harm. The legal issues for the court to decide included the appropriate discount for the offenders' guilty pleas, the objective and subjective circumstances of the offences, and the principles of parity and totality in sentencing.

Justice Norrish accorded Wilson a 20% discount and Beath-Williams a 25% discount for their guilty pleas. The court considered various factors in determining the appropriate sentences, including the objective seriousness of the offending, the subjective circumstances of the offenders, and the principles of sentencing outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). The court also took into account the decision of the High Court in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571, which highlighted the importance of considering the disadvantaged backgrounds of offenders in sentencing decisions.

Ultimately, Justice Norrish sentenced Wilson to a total of seven years and four months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and four months, for the aggravated robbery and grievous bodily harm offences. Beath-Williams was sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year, for his role in the offence. The court also took no action in relation to the offenders' breaches of Good Behaviour Orders.

In delivering the final orders, Justice Norrish noted the importance of promoting the rehabilitation of the offenders and providing them with opportunities to address the underlying issues that led to their offending. The court considered the availability of rehabilitation programs and the potential for the offenders to engage in pro-social activities upon their release from custody.

Orders