The Queen v Trent Alan WILLIAMS (No 2) - [2011] ACTSC 77

THE QUEEN V TRENT ALAN WILLIAMS (NO 2)
[2011] ACTSC 77 (12 May 2011)

CRIMINAL LAW – special hearing – trial by judge alone – accused found to have engaged in the conduct required for the offence.
CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – accused unfit to plead or becoming incapable during trial – orders to be made after special hearing.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 184, 190

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 27, 316, 317, 318, Div 13.2
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 311
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 10, 13, 17

R v Ardler (2004) 144 A Crim R 552

R v Williams [2011] ACTSC 76

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 292 of 2010

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 12 May 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 292 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

THE QUEEN
V
TRENT ALAN WILLIAMS

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  12 May 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

On the first count in the indictment, Trent Alan Williams engaged in the conduct required for the offence.
On the second count in the indictment, Trent Alan Williams engaged in the conduct required for the offence.

AND THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The proceedings be adjourned to 9.30 am on 13 May 2011.
The Court Liaison Officer of Mental Health ACT be requested to attend to give evidence about Trent Alan Williams.

On 3 May 2011, I found the accused, Trent Alan Williams, unfit to plead and therefore I am required to hold a special hearing under s 316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act). I then indicated that, on the basis of that finding, I was also satisfied under s 316(2)(a)(i) of the Crimes Act, Mr Williams was capable of making an election for trial by a single judge without a jury and I received an election for him to be tried by a single judge without a jury.
The date for the special hearing was to be set on 9 May 2011. Before that time, the prosecution filed in court a brief of the evidence on which they proposed to rely. That material, being witness statements and photographs, was ultimately tendered at the special hearing and its admission into evidence was by consent.
I formed the view that under either ss 184 or 190 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), Mr Williams understood the consequences of giving a consent to that course of proceeding. Under s 316(1) of the Crimes Act, a special hearing is to be conducted as nearly as possible as if it were an ordinary criminal hearing.
Of course all that has to be determined under s 317 of the Crimes Act is whether I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in the conduct required for the offence charged. Applying this, I then approached the task in the following way.
Sitting as a judge alone I make any finding…

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 The Queen v Trent Alan WILLIAMS (No 2) 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: [2011] ACTSC 77
Decision Date: 12 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen brought proceedings against Trent Alan Williams in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Williams was charged with burglary and theft. The case involved the theft of various items from a townhouse in Lyneham and Williams’ subsequent arrest and possession of stolen goods. The court was required to determine whether Williams was guilty of the offences charged and whether he was fit to plead.

The court had to decide if Williams engaged in the conduct required for the offences of burglary and theft and whether he was fit to plead at the time of trial. The court considered whether Williams' unfitness to plead at the time of trial rendered him unable to participate in his defence, and whether the case should proceed with a trial by judge alone. The court had to determine the appropriate orders under section 318 of the Crimes Act for dealing with Williams’ unfitness to plead.

The court found that Williams engaged in the conduct required for the offences of burglary and theft, as he was found in possession of stolen goods shortly after the burglary. The court concluded that Williams was unfit to plead due to his mental condition. Under section 318 of the Crimes Act, the court ordered that Williams be dealt with according to the provisions of the Act for defendants who are unfit to plead, including the possibility of being detained in a mental health facility or otherwise as deemed appropriate. The court also noted that despite the potential severity of the penalties for burglary and theft, these offences were considered non-serious under the terms of Division 13.2 of the Crimes Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The elements of the offence of theft are that the person must: (a) dishonestly; (b) appropriate property; (c) belonging to another; (d) with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of the property. It seems to me that (b), (c) and (d) are the conduct required for the offence.The Evidence I have perused carefully the witness statements tendered by the prosecution. On the basis of those statements, I can make the following findings beyond reasonable doubt. At about 4.00 am on 7 September 2009, the owner of a townhouse in Lyneham awoke to hear what turned out to be an intruder in his house. He disturbed the intruder whom he chased through the kitchen and out into the backyard. The intruder jumped the fence and the owner did not follow but contacted his home security company who called the police. The owner noted that the following items were missing:1 x white and silver 30Gb I-pod holding approximately 1800 songs;1 x black and silver Toshiba laptop computer and brown leather carry bag;1 x silver Canon camera in a green carry bag;1 x brown leather wallet containing a small amount of cash and cards. Police attended and the owner informed them of the intrusion and the missing items. They contacted police communications and provided details of the description of the intruder that the owner had provided. At about 4.40 am, on that morning, police driving along DeBurgh Street, Lyneham, noticed a male who matched the description that the owner had provided. He was known to the police officers as the accused, Mr Williams. They stopped him and had a conversation with him. He indicated that he had an I-pod with him. Police, forming the view that Mr Williams may have been involved in the burglary, searched him and located the I-pod. Mr Williams said it was his. He gave to police several different stories about how he obtained it. The police, who had gone to the townhouse, then attended and arrested Mr Williams. He was taken to the City Watchhouse. The police then went to Mr Williams’ residence and, with the permission of another occupier, searched it and located a bag, seized as the possible proceeds of a burglary. The owner of the Lyneham unit later attended the police station with a charger for the I-pod, the battery of which had been discovered to be flat. When charged, the I-pod was operated and the owner identified the contents as those he had placed on it. Other items seized from Mr Williams were identified by the owner, photographed and returned to him. On the basis of this material, I am satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mr Williams engaged in the conduct required for the offences of burglary and theft charged in the indictment. Having made the findings I have, I am required to deal with Mr Williams under s 318 of the Crimes Act. That section applies to what are described as “non-serious offences”. Despite the fact that burglary attracts a maximum penalty of 1400 penalty units, a fine of $154,000 or fourteen years’ imprisonment or both, and theft a maximum penalty of 1,000 penalty units, a fine of $110,000 or imprisonment for ten years or both, they are, in the terms of Div 13.2 of the Crimes Act, non-serious offences.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.