The Queen v Williams

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory heard an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Shane Williams. The dispute concerned the adequacy of a total sentence of seven years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and six months, for the offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and sexual intercourse with a child under ten years. The respondent had received a 25% discount on each offence for his guilty plea, and the sentences were partially accumulated.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate, and whether the weight given to the respondent's guilty plea constituted a specific sentencing error or contributed to a manifest inadequacy. The Crown argued that the sentence was unreasonable and plainly unjust, requiring interference with the sentencing judge's discretion. The Court was required to determine if the sentencing judge had erred in principle or failed to consider material considerations, or if the sentence was so low as to infer a failure to properly exercise discretion.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding the total sentence of seven years and six months to be manifestly inadequate, particularly given the respondent's extensive criminal history of similar sexual offences against children and a pattern of re-offending. The Court reasoned that while a guilty plea is a mitigating factor, the discount applied in this instance, combined with the overall leniency of the sentence, failed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences, the need for community protection, and the principles of punishment and deterrence. The Court applied the principles established in *House v The King* and subsequent cases concerning appeals against sentence based on manifest inadequacy, noting that such inadequacy can be inferred from the result even without identifying a specific error in the sentencing judge's reasoning.

The Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the original sentences be set aside, and the respondent be re-sentenced to a total of nine years and six months imprisonment. This new sentence comprised three years for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm and eight years for the sexual intercourse with a child under ten years, with the latter to commence eighteen months after the assault sentence. A non-parole period of seven years and six months was also imposed.