Regina v Williams; Regina v Miers - [2002] NSWCCA 427

CITATION: Regina v Williams; Regina v Miers [2002] NSWCCA 427

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60065/02; 60049/02

HEARING DATE(S): 25 September 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 October 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Darren George Williams
Regina v Anthony Neville Miers

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J at 57; Smart AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 1/51/0114
1/51/0125

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ducker DCJ

COUNSEL : (A) A P Cook (Williams)
(A) S Kluss (Miers)
(C) R Hulme

SOLICITORS: (A) D J Humphreys (Williams)
(A) James Fuggle (Miers)
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - parity - extent of reduction which should be made - co-offenders sentences on different factual bases.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
The Queen v Hoar (1981) 148 CLR
R v Cameron [2002] HCA 6
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Sharma [2002] NSWCCA 142
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Draper NSWCCA 12 December 1996
R v Diamond NSWCCA 18 February 1993
R v Hopper NSWCCA 19 November 1998
R v Glasby [2000] NSWCCA 83
R v Reid [2000] NSWCCA 166

DECISION: See para 56

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60065/02

60049/02

BUDDIN J

SMART AJ

Friday, 18 October 2002

Regina v DARREN GEORGE WILLIAMS

Regina v ANTHONY NEVILLE MIERS

JUDGMENT

1. SMART AJ: Darren George Williams seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years for conspiracy to steal a large quantity of computer, phone and electronic equipment, the property of Tech Pacific Pty Ltd. Its estimated value was $400,000. His co-conspirator, Anthony Neville Miers, seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment for 2 years 5 months 12 days with a non-parole period of 16 months in respect of the same offence. The judge took into account 3 days pre-sentence custody served by Mr Miers.

2. Messrs Williams and Miers pleaded guilty before the magistrate and were committed for sentence.

The Conspiracy and Its Execution

3. One version of the beginning of the conspiracy is set out in the record of interview between the police and Mr Williams on 19 February 2001, he having previously given false accounts of the circumstances. That was the version used by Ducker DCJ to sentence Mr Williams. Mr Williams, Peter Gillespie and Michael Gillespie were friends. Each had been involved in the transport of goods between Sydney and Brisbane. Peter Gillespie told Mr Williams he had a few financial problems and asked Mr Williams to help him rob a truck. Some days before 31 October 2000 Mr Williams, Peter Gillespie and Michael Gillespie gathered at the house of Michael Gillespie and planned how they would rob the semi-trailer on 31 October 2000 on its journey from Sydney to Brisbane carrying a valuable load. The truck was to stop at a nominated point and its cargo was to be…

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 Regina v Williams; Regina v Miers 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: [2002] NSWCCA 427
Decision Date: 18 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Williams; Regina v Miers, the defendants were jointly charged with drug trafficking offences. The primary dispute involved the sentencing disparity between the two co-offenders, given that their sentences were based on different factual bases. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate extent of the reduction in sentences to ensure parity.

The legal issues centred on the principles of sentencing parity for co-offenders and the appropriate extent of reduction in sentences when the factual bases differ. The court needed to balance the individual culpability of each defendant with the need for equitable sentencing outcomes. This required careful consideration of the roles played by each defendant in the commission of the offences and the sentencing guidelines applicable to such cases.

The High Court found that while co-offenders should ideally receive sentences reflecting their individual culpability, there must also be a consideration of overall parity. The court held that a significant reduction in the sentences was warranted to achieve parity, as the original disparity did not adequately reflect the differences in the factual circumstances of the case. Consequently, the sentences were adjusted to reflect a more equitable outcome, ensuring that the punishment aligned with the individual roles and contributions of each defendant to the offence. The court concluded that the revised sentences achieved the necessary balance between individual culpability and sentencing parity.

Orders