The State of Western Australia v Williams - [2015] WASC 347

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- WILLIAMS [2015] WASC 347

CORAM: MARTINO J

HEARD: 10 SEPTEMBER 2015

DELIVERED : 21 SEPTEMBER 2015

FILE NO/S: INS 212 of 2014

BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Prosecution
AND
BRONWYN ANNE WILLIAMS
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Trial by judge alone - Duress

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 4, s 32, s 371
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 118, s 119, s 120
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 32

Result:

Accused convicted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Prosecution : Mr P N Bevilacqua
Accused: Mr J T Fisher

Solicitors:

Prosecution : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Accused: Justine Fisher Barrister & Solicitor

Cases referred to in judgment:

Palmer v Lacco [2013] WASC 236
R v English (1993) 10 WAR 355
Smith v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 205
Van Den Berg v The Queen [1984] WAR 162

MARTINO J: The accused, Ms Williams, was charged on a seven count indictment dated 2 December 2014 with one count of stealing a motor vehicle, two counts of armed robbery, one count of attempted armed robbery, one count of stealing, one count of aggravated armed robbery and one count of robbery.
On 19 March 2015, Hall J ordered that the trial of the charges on that indictment be by judge alone, pursuant to s 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA).
On 29 July 2015, Ms Williams was committed to this court from the Magistrates Court on a charge of attempted armed robbery.
On 7 August 2015, the State filed an indictment that contained eight counts. The first seven counts were the counts substantially as they appeared on the indictment dated 2 December 2014. Count 8 was the charge that had been committed to this court on 29 July 2015. On 3 September 2015, Hall J ordered that the trial of count 8 be by judge alone and that the trial be the same trial as the trial of the first seven counts, which had been listed to commence on 10 September 2015.
The trial commenced, as listed, on 10 September 2015. Ms Williams was arraigned on the indictment dated 7 August 2015. She pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. Counsel for the State and counsel for Ms Williams then delivered opening addresses. In her opening address, counsel for Ms Williams said that Ms Williams would admit the actual commission of the offences but that she said she was not guilty by reason of s 32 of the Criminal Code (WA) as she was acting under duress at the time of the commission of each offence.
The charges on the indictment are:
1.On or about 11 November 2012 at Tuart Hill, Bronwyn Anne Williams stole a motor vehicle, namely a Ford Meteor station sedan, registered number 7PL468, the property of Koloni Vaatuitui;
2.On 12 November 2012 at Wembley, Bronwyn Anne Williams stole from Michael Vincent Henry, with threats of violence, a sum of money, the property of Gaudy Investments Pty Ltd trading as The Wembley Hotel,
And that Bronwyn Anne Williams was armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife;
3.On 27 November 2012 at Padbury, Bronwyn Anne Williams attempted to steal from Jarrad Steven Tonkin, with threats of violence, a BMW four‑wheel drive motor vehicle, registered number BMAX5, the property of Jarrad Steven Tonkin,
And that Bronwyn Anne Williams was armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife;
4.On 27 November 2012 at Padbury, Bronwyn Anne Williams stole a mobile telephone the property of Jarrad Steven Tonkin;
5.On 27 November 2012 at Warwick, Bronwyn Anne Williams stole from Heather Hood, with threats of violence, a Mazda 3 station sedan, registered number 1CFA469, the property of Heather Hood,
And that Bronwyn Anne Williams was armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife,
And that Heather Hood was of or over the age of 60 years;
6.On 27 November 2012 at Dianella, Bronwyn Anne Williams stole from Jennifer Louise Callaway, with threats of violence, a sum of money, the property of Westpac Banking Corporation Australia trading as Westpac Dianella;
7.On 27 November 2012 at Booragoon, Bronwyn Anne Williams stole from Carolyn June Carson, with threats of violence, a sum of money the property of ANZ Banking Corporation trading as ANZ Booragoon,
And that Bronwyn Anne Williams was armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife; and
8.On 31 March 2015 at Rivervale, Bronwyn Anne Williams attempted to steal from Ashley Michael Williams, with threats of violence, a Ford Territory motor vehicle, registered 1DIO021, the property of Ashley Michael Williams,
And that Bronwyn Anne Williams was armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife.

Legal principles applicable to trial by judge alone

Section 119 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires me to apply, so far as is practicable, the same principles of law and procedure as would be applied in a trial before a jury. If any written or other law requires information or a warning or instruction to be given to the jury in certain circumstances or prohibits a warning from being given to a jury in certain circumstances, then I must take that requirement or prohibition into account if those circumstances arise in the course of the trial. Section 120 allows me to make any findings and give any verdict that a jury could have made or given if the trial had been before a jury and requires me to include in my judgment the principles of law that I have applied and the findings of fact on which I have relied.
There are eight offences with which Ms Williams has been charged in this trial. I must look at each charge separately and make a decision on each charge separately. When I am considering whether the State has proved a charge, I consider only the evidence that is relevant to that charge. My verdicts do not have to be the same on each charge. If I find Ms Williams guilty of one charge, it does not follow that she is guilty of another charge.
The burden of proving each of the charges is on the State. The standard to which it must do so is beyond reasonable doubt. I cannot deliver a verdict of guilty on a charge unless the State has proved every element of that charge beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt is a high standard. It is the highest standard that is known to the law. If I have a reasonable doubt on a charge, then my verdict on that charge is not guilty. In these reasons, whenever I refer to the State being required to prove something, I am referring to the requirement that the State prove that thing beyond reasonable doubt.
When I am considering the evidence, I must remember that Ms Williams is presumed to be innocent of the charges against her. Ms Williams does not have to prove anything. The only way that the presumption of innocence can be removed is if I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that evidence has been produced in this trial which proves that Ms Williams is guilty of the charge I am considering.
I must consider the evidence dispassionately. I cannot allow myself to be influenced by prejudice or by sympathy.
When I consider the evidence, I cannot guess or speculate or look for theories not supported by the evidence. However, I may draw inferences from facts. This is a criminal trial and the accused is presumed to be innocent unless she is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, before I draw an inference against her, I must be satisfied that it is the only inference that is reasonably available.
In considering whether to draw an inference against Ms Williams, I do not consider the facts in isolation, but I consider them as a whole to determine whether the inference is the only inference reasonably available.
Ms Williams gave evidence during the trial. Ms Williams did not have to give evidence at this trial. She chose to give evidence and, as a result, to submit herself to cross‑examination.
The fact that she chose to give evidence does not in any way detract from the important principles that the onus is on the State to prove the charges that it presents, that Ms Williams is presumed to be innocent of each charge, and that the standard of proof that the State must meet before I can find Ms Williams guilty is beyond reasonable doubt.
Even if I were not to believe Ms Williams' evidence, I cannot find an issue against her contrary to her evidence if her evidence has given rise to a reasonable doubt on that issue. It is important for me to remember that the question for me to consider is whether, on all the evidence, the State has proved the charge I am considering beyond reasonable doubt. If Ms Williams' evidence has given rise to a reasonable doubt, then she is entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt and the verdict is not guilty.
Further, even if I were not to accept Ms Williams' evidence and were to reject that evidence, it would not follow automatically that my verdicts are guilty. If I do not believe her evidence, then I put that evidence aside. The question will remain: has the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams is guilty of the charge I am considering.

Elements of the offences

To prove count 1 on the indictment, the State must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt.
The first is identity, that is, the State must prove that the person who did the things that the State says constitute the offence was the accused person, Ms Williams.
In this charge, Ms Williams is charged with having stolen a motor vehicle, namely a Ford Meteor sedan, registered number 7PL468, the property of Koloni Vaatuitui, and so the provisions of s 371A of the Criminal Code apply. A person who unlawfully uses a motor vehicle or takes a motor vehicle for the purposes of using it or drives or otherwise assumes control of a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner or the person in charge of that motor vehicle is said to steal that motor vehicle.
So the second element that the State must prove is that Ms Williams used the motor vehicle or took the motor vehicle for the purposes of using it or drove or otherwise assumed control of the motor vehicle.
The third element the State must prove is that Ms Williams did so without the consent of the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle.
The word 'unlawful' in s 371A of the Code indicates that the conduct identified in the section is conduct that is wrongful. The word does not add an element that the prosecution must prove.[1]
[1] Palmer v Lacco [2013] WASC 236.

Duress

Ms Williams relies upon the law of duress contained in s 32 of the Criminal Code which provides:
32. Duress
(1)A person is not criminally responsible for an act done, or an omission made, under duress under subsection (2).
(2)A person does an act or makes an omission under duress if ‑
(a)the person believes ‑
(i)a threat has been made; and
(ii)the threat will be carried out unless an offence is committed; and
(iii)doing the act or making the omission is necessary to prevent the threat from being carried out;
and
(b)the act or omission is a reasonable response to the threat in the circumstances as the person believes them to be; and
(c)there are reasonable grounds for those beliefs.
(3)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the threat is made by or on behalf of a person with whom the person under duress is voluntarily associating for the purpose of ‑
(a)doing an act or making an omission of the kind in fact done or made by the person under duress; or
(b)prosecuting an unlawful purpose in which it is reasonably foreseeable such a threat would be made.
If there is evidence fit for me to consider that the defence does apply, then the burden of negativing the defence rests upon the prosecution. The standard it must meet is beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 32 of the Code provides that the defence of duress is available when:
1.The accused believes a threat has been made;
2.The accused believes that the threat will be carried out unless an offence is committed;
3.The accused believes that doing the act or making the omission is necessary to prevent the threat being carried out;
4.The act or omission is a reasonable response to the threat in the circumstances as the accused believes them to be; and
5.There are reasonable grounds for those beliefs.
To prove count 2, the State must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt.
The first is identity.
The second is that Ms Williams stole a sum of money. Section 371(1) of the Criminal Code provides:
A person who fraudulently takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to his own use or to the use of any other person any property, is said to steal that thing or that property.
Section 371(2)(b) of the Code provides that a person who takes or converts something capable of being stolen to his own use does so fraudulently if he does so with an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the thing. Section 371(2)(f) provides that a person who takes money does so fraudulently when he does so with an intent to use it at the will of the person who takes it.
The act of stealing is not complete until the person taking or converting the thing actually moves it or otherwise actually deals with it by some physical act.[2]
[2] Criminal Code (WA) s 371(6).
So to prove that Ms Williams stole a sum of money, the State must prove that Ms Williams took the sum of money, that she did so with an intent to permanently deprive the owner of it or to use it at her own will and that she actually moved it or otherwise actually dealt with it by some physical act.
Third, the State must prove that the sum of money that it alleges that Ms Williams stole was the property of someone other than Ms Williams.
Fourth, the State must prove that immediately before, or at the time of or immediately after stealing the sum of money, Ms Williams threatened to use violence to any person or property in order ‑
(a)to obtain the thing stolen; or
(b)to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen.
The fifth element that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt is that Ms Williams was armed with an offensive weapon. The offensive weapon the State alleges that Ms Williams was armed with was a knife. The State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams carried a knife, that the knife could be used to inflict bodily injury, and that the knife was readily available for use to inflict bodily injury.[3]
[3] Van Den Berg v The Queen [1984] WAR 162.
I need to consider the law of duress which I have referred to when I discussed the elements of count 1.
Count 3 is a charge of attempted armed robbery. The robbery which the State alleges that Ms Williams attempted was the attempted stealing of a motor vehicle with threats of violence when Ms Williams was armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife.
Section 4 of the Criminal Code provides:
4. Term used: attempt to commit offence
When a person, intending to commit an offence, begins to put his intention into execution by doing an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence but does not fulfil his intention to such an extent as to commit the offence, he is said to attempt to commit the offence.
It is immaterial, except so far as regards punishment, whether the offender does all that is necessary on his part for completing the commission of the offence, or whether the complete fulfilment of his intention is prevented by circumstances independent of his will, or whether he desists of his own motion from the further prosecution of his intention.
It is immaterial that by reason of circumstances not known to the offender, it is impossible in fact to commit the offence.
The same facts may constitute one offence and an attempt to commit another offence.
To prove that Ms Williams attempted to commit the offence of attempted robbery, the State must prove first that she intended to commit the offence; second, the State must prove that she did an act which was more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, such act being done as the initial step in putting that intention into effect; and, third, the State must prove non‑fulfilment by Ms Williams of her intention to commit the intended offence.[4]
[4] R v English (1993) 10 WAR 355, 358.
The elements of the offence of armed robbery alleged in count 3 which the State must prove where, as in that count, the thing attempted to be stolen was a motor vehicle are: first, identity; second, the use of the motor vehicle or the taking of the motor vehicle for the purposes of using it or the driving or other assumption of control of the motor vehicle; third, that the use, taking, driving or other assumption of control of the motor vehicle was without the consent of the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle; fourth, that immediately before, or at the time of or immediately after the use, taking, driving or other assumption of control of the motor vehicle the accused threatened to use violence to any person or property in order to obtain the motor vehicle or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen and fifth that the accused was armed with an offensive weapon.
I need to consider the law of duress which I have referred to when I discussed the elements of count 1.
To prove count 4, the State must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt.
The first is identity.
The second is that Ms Williams stole a mobile telephone. I have described in detail what constitutes the element of stealing when I was setting out the elements of count 2.
To prove that Ms Williams stole a mobile telephone, the State must prove that Ms Williams took the mobile telephone, that she did so with an intent to permanently deprive the owner of it, and that she actually moved it or otherwise actually dealt with it by some physical act
Third, the State must prove that the mobile telephone that it alleges that Ms Williams stole was the property of someone other than Ms Williams.
I need to consider the law of duress which I have referred to when I discussed the elements of count 1.
In count 5, the State alleges that Ms Williams committed the offence of armed robbery by stealing a motor vehicle with threats of violence while armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife, in the circumstance of aggravation that the complainant was of or over the age of 60 years.
To prove count 5, the State must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt.
The first is identity.
The second element that the State must prove is that Ms Williams used the motor vehicle or took the motor vehicle for the purposes of using it or drove or otherwise assumed control of the motor vehicle.
The third element the State must prove is that Ms Williams did so without the consent of the owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle.
The fourth element that the State must prove is that immediately before, or at the time of or immediately after the use, taking, driving or other assumption of control of the motor vehicle, Ms Williams threatened to use violence to any person or property in order to obtain the motor vehicle or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen.
The fifth element that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt is that Ms Williams was armed with an offensive weapon.
The sixth element that the State must prove is that the complainant, Heather Hood, was of or over the age of 60 years.
I need to consider the law of duress which I have referred to when I discussed the elements of count 1.
To prove count 6, the State must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt.
The first is identity.
The second is that Ms Williams stole a sum of money. To prove that Ms Williams stole a sum of money, the State must prove that Ms Williams took the sum of money, that she did so with an intent to permanently deprive the owner of it or to use it at her will and that she actually moved it or otherwise actually dealt with it by some physical act

Third, the State must prove that the sum of money that it alleges that Ms Williams stole was the property of someone other than Ms Williams.
Fourth, the State must prove that immediately before, or at the time of or immediately after stealing the sum of money, Ms Williams threatened to use violence to any person or property in order ‑
(a)to obtain the thing stolen; or
(b)to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen.
I need to consider the law of duress which I have referred to when I discussed the elements of count 1.
To prove count 7, the State must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt.
The first is identity.
The second is that Ms Williams stole a sum of money. To prove that Ms Williams stole a sum of money, the State must prove that Ms Williams took the sum of money, that she did so with an intent to permanently deprive the owner of it or to use it at her will and that she actually moved it or otherwise actually dealt with it by some physical act.
Third, the State must prove that the sum of money that it alleges that Ms Williams stole was the property of someone other than Ms Williams.
Fourth, the State must prove that immediately before, or at the time of or immediately after stealing the sum of money, Ms Williams threatened to use violence to any person or property in order ‑
(a)to obtain the thing stolen; or
(b)to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen.
The fifth element that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt is that Ms Williams was armed with an offensive weapon.
I need to consider the law of duress which I have referred to when I discussed the elements of count 1.
Count 8 is a charge of attempted robbery. The robbery which the State alleges that Ms Williams attempted was the attempted stealing of a motor vehicle with threats of violence when Ms Williams was armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife.
The elements of this charge are the same as the elements of count 3. As in all the previous counts, I need to consider the law of duress which I have referred to when I discussed the elements of count 1.

The evidence

Counsel for the State read the following facts:
BEVILACQUA, MR: Yes, your Honour. I will now read out the facts to be admitted in relation to each of the eight counts. In relation to count 1, these following facts relate to that count: on Sunday, 11 November 2012 a motor vehicle belonging to Koloni Vaatuitui, a white Ford Meteor station sedan bearing registration 7PL468, valued at about five hundred to six hundred dollars, was parked in the driveway of his premises in Tuart Hill.
Between the hours of 9 pm on Sunday, 11 November 2012 and 5.10 am on Monday, 12 November 2012, an unknown person or persons have stolen the motor vehicle by hotwiring it from that location without the consent of the owner. At about 6.20 pm on Monday, 12 November 2012 the accused, Bronwyn Anne Williams, used the stolen vehicle to commit an armed robbery at the Wembley Hotel situated in Wembley. The vehicle was later located by police abandoned on Dianella Drive in Dianella.
Moving now onto count 2: at about 6.20 pm on Monday, 12 November 2012 the accused attended the Thirsty Camel bottle shop attached to the Wembley Hotel, Wembley. The accused attempted to conceal her identity by wearing a hat, sunglasses and a bandana covering the lower half of her face. The accused walked to the side of the counter and approached a male staff member, Michael Henry, who was 21 years old at the time, grabbing him on the right arm.
The accused held a large kitchen knife above her head with the blade pointing towards the staff member. At the time the staff member was on the phone to the manager of the Wembley Hotel who was inside the hotel. The accused yelled, 'Open the till. Open the fucking till,' repeatedly. The staff member pressed several buttons on the register but was initially unable to open the till. The manager of the Wembley Hotel, Joe Armitage, who was 22 years old at the time, heard the commotion and attended the bottle shop to find the accused threatening the staff member with the knife which was raised up near the side of her heard.
The accused still had hold of the staff member. When the manager arrived, the accused let go of the staff member and moved towards the manager. She held the knife in front of her chest in a threatening manner and repeated her demands to the manager. The manager attempted a couple of times to open the register. The accused moved towards the manager who told her to go back. The accused did move back and eventually the till was opened.
The accused reached into the register and stole $500, the property of Gaudy Investments Proprietary Limited, before leaving the premises through the drive-through. The incident was captured on the store CCTV surveillance footage. The manager followed the accused and observed her get into the driver's seat of a stolen white Ford Meteor station sedan parked nearby. The accused then sped from the scene in the vehicle.
Now, moving on to count 3: at 6.55 am on Tuesday, 22 November 2012 Jarrad Steven Tonkin, who was 32 years of age at the time, was at the BP petrol station in Padbury, situated at the intersection of Marmion Avenue and Warburton Road. Mr Tonkin is a mechanic and was putting air into the tires of a customer's BMW X5 motor vehicle, registration number BMAX5. The accused was in the vicinity of Padbury and was driving a stolen Toyota Hilux motor vehicle, registration number 1DAS802.
The registration plates on the Toyota Hilux were altered with white paint so the number 8 looked like a 3. The accused parked next to the BMW, walked up to Mr Tonkin and produced a knife. She then demanded the keys for the vehicle and got into the BMW X5. Mr Tonkin, still holding the car keys, ran up to the service window and asked the attendant to call police.
Moving now to count 4: stealing, your Honour. Mr Tonkin returned to the BMW to see the accused rummaging through the car. He held the driver's door shut to prevent the accused getting out. The accused has then stolen an iPhone 4 belonging to Mr Tonkin that was inside the vehicle, before moving to the passenger side and getting out. As she got out, some petrol station attendants approached her. She then quickly got back behind the driver's wheel of the stolen Hilux and left the scene.
Moving now to count 5: on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 the accused was driving around in a stolen Toyota Hilux, utility registration number 1DAS802. At approximately 9.50 am the accused attended the southern side of the Warwick shopping centre, Beach Road, Warwick. At the same time, Heather Hood also attended the southern side of Warwick shopping centre and parked her vehicle, a 2006 Mazda3 hatch valued at around $12,700, near the bus stop facing Beach Road.
Ms Hood has got out of her vehicle to check to see if she has parked correctly in the parking bay, when she noticed the stolen Toyota Hilux parked near her vehicle. Ms Hood witnessed the accused jump out of the driver's seat and walk towards her. The accused yelled at the victim, 'Give me your keys. Give me your keys. I need your car.' Ms Hood had her car keys in her hand and was clutching onto them. The accused, using her left hand, grabbed at Ms Hood's hand tightly.
With her right hand, the accused held a knife up to Ms Hood, raised the knife to the left side of her neck just below the chin, and shouted, 'I have to do this for my children.' The knife was old and dirty with a blade about as long as half a pen. The accused then pushed Ms Hood aside after grabbing the keys and got into the driver's seat of Ms Hood's vehicle. Ms Hood shouted for help as she put her hands on the back of her car. She screamed, 'I'm being robbed.'
Ms Hood was trying to hold the car as it was reversing, until a passer‑by pulled her out of the way. Had she not been pulled out of the way, she could have been seriously injured. The accused completed reversing the car and drove off at speed. The passer-by chased the car and managed to open a back door, but it sped off with the door open. Ms Hood at the time of the offence was a 75 year old lady who was physically and emotionally shaken by the incident.
Moving to count 6: at about 10.30 am on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 the accused attend the Westpac branch located in the Dianella shopping centre, Dianella. The accused attempted to conceal her identity by pulling the hood of her jumper over her head and wearing large sunglasses. The accused waited in the teller queue for a short period until it was her turn to be served. The accused approached the counter and said to the teller, Ms Jennifer Callaway, who was 37 years of age at the time, 'I want you to get a bag and put all your money into it.'
The accused's hands were initially both in her jumper and below the counter, moving in an agitated manner. The accused then reached out her right hand towards the teller, pointing to an open draw where cash was clearly visible. Her other hand remained inside her jumper pocket and below the counter. The teller pressed the duress alarm, and the bank manager, Ms Patricia Holme, who was 62 years of age at the time, approached the teller.
The teller told the bank manager she was being help up, and the manager then stood next to her, saying nothing further. The teller reached into her cash draw and removed $700, the property of Westpac Banking Corporation, handing it to the accused. The accused took the cash before turning and walking briskly out of the bank. The incident was captured on CCTV surveillance footage. The bank manager followed the accused and observed her getting into the driver's seat of a stolen grey Mazda 3 sedan parked nearby. The accused then sped from the scene in the vehicle. The incident was witnessed by customers and other staff and left the teller in shock.
Moving on to count 7. At about 11.45 am on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 the accused attended the ANZ branch located at 135 Riseley Street, Booragoon. The accused attempted to conceal her identify by pulling the hood over her jumper – pulling the hood of her jumper over her head, wearing large sunglasses and concealing the lower half of her face with a piece of white cloth. The accused approached the counter and started shouting at the teller, Ms Caroline Carsen, who was 51 years of age at the time, 'Give me your money', over and over.
The accused then produced a fold out knife that was about 10 centimetres long and pointed it towards the teller, urging her to hurry up. The teller reached into her cash drawer and removed $1450 in cash, the property of ANZ Banking Corporation Australia Limited, handing it to the accused. The accused took the cash and demanded more while producing a second kitchen knife that was about 20 centimetres long. The teller gave the accused a few further notes and the teller then turned away and walked ‑ sorry, and the accused then turned away and walked briskly out of the bank.
The incident was captured on CCTV surveillance footage. Just to confirm, the total amount that was stolen at that time was $1450. The incident was witnessed by customers and other staff and left the teller crying in shock. The accused was arrested later that day at around about 3.40 pm. Moving to count 8. At 11.50 am on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 the accused was in the Red Rooster car park located on Great Eastern Highway, Rivervale.
The accused approached a Mr Ashley Williams, who was sitting in his Ford Territory at the transaction window of the Red Rooster drive through waiting for his order. The accused walked up to the driver's side window, produced a kitchen style knife which had a three inch blade, pointed it at Mr Williams and demanded he get out of the car, stating, 'I want your car. Give me your car'. Mr Williams refused the accused's demands, whereupon the accused began to try and open the driver's door whilst still pointing the knife at Mr Williams.
Mr Williams pushed the accused away from his car in an effort to stop her gaining entry into the vehicle. With Mr Williams refusing to acknowledge the accused's demands, the accused ran from the area towards Armadale Road in Rivervale. Mr Williams followed the accused whilst speaking with police, giving the accused's description and direction of travel. Mr Williams watched the accused enter into a residential property at 19 Armadale Road, Rivervale.
The accused then went into the backyard of that property. Once at the premises, the accused approached a sliding door leading to a family room and began to try and open the door by pulling on the handle. This drew the attention of the home owner who readily observed the accused trying to gain entry into her house. The home owner challenged the accused who ran to the rear fence, jumping it into another residential property.
Police attended and located the accused walking along Hampton Street, Rivervale, where she was placed under arrest as a suspect. When requested to afford her personal details, the accused stated to police her name was Augustine. When asked for further personal details, the accused stated her name was Claire Michaels. Police challenged the accused once that name could not be located in the police database, however, the accused remained adamant that the details provided were correct.
Once the accused was conveyed to the Kensington Detective's Office, she changed her identity and stated to police her name was Yasmin Warnbro. This name was not found in the police database, whereupon she was once again challenged by police. Police outlined the consequences of not declaring her personal details, whereupon the accused then stated her name was Caitlyn Hughes. Ultimately, the accused was identified through fingerprint analysis.
After counsel for the State read those facts counsel for Ms Williams said:
FISHER, MS: Certainly, sir. The accused has instructed that pursuant to section 32, the facts contained within the statement of material facts are ‑ can be, and are to be, formally admitted by her. So the facts are formally admitted.
The admission by Ms Williams' counsel in Ms Williams' presence of the facts read by the State is sufficient proof of the facts without other evidence.[5]
[5] Evidence Act 1906 (WA) s 32.
The State then closed its case.
Ms Williams elected to give evidence.
Ms Williams is 34 years old. She has four children, they are a son who is aged 18 and three daughters aged 15, 8 and 5. The eldest two children have different fathers. They live with their fathers or their grandparents. The youngest two children have been placed in accommodation by the Department of Child Protection.
In November 2012, Ms Williams' children lived in the same places at which they now live. Ms Williams was staying with friends in various locations. She did not have a particular friend or friends with whom she stayed more than others. She did not own a car.
Ms Williams' counsel asked Ms Williams about the car the subject of count 1. Ms Williams' evidence was that she picked up the car in the evening, pulled up and fell asleep in it. She picked it up in Tuart Hill.
Ms Williams' counsel asked why she did that. Ms Williams' evidence was that at the time she was being extorted. Her evidence was that they call it 'fined'. She said that this was a really stupid policy where people think that they can take money off you if you step on their toes.
Her counsel asked Ms Williams who she was referring to. Ms Williams' evidence was that she was referring to 'drug dealers, people who fancy themselves as criminals, bikies, people like that'. Ms Williams' evidence was that she was 'getting fined for poaching customers, selling in their area and other little things'. Her evidence was that she was 'getting fined mostly by bikies and other drug dealers for those bikies'.
By that evidence, I understand Ms Williams to mean that she was selling drugs and that she understood that other drug dealers were demanding money from her because she was selling drugs to those drug dealers' customers. Ms Williams confirmed in cross‑examination that she was selling drugs.
Ms Williams' counsel asked her if she was being fined by someone in particular or many people. Ms Williams' evidence was that she did not know, she was just getting told that she was getting fined. Ms Williams' counsel asked her who was telling her that. Ms Williams' evidence was that she was told that by a woman named Minh Le. She had met Ms Le in prison. She had not had much to do with her in prison or after she was released from prison. One day Ms Le went to the house in Osborne Park at which Ms Williams was staying. Ms Williams was staying there with another drug dealer. Ms Le came to that house approximately a month before Ms Williams picked up the car the subject of count 1. Ms Le came to the house, bought some drugs and took the drugs. Ms Le and Ms Williams caught up a couple of times. Ms Le used to come to the house a fair bit, she was friends with the man whose house it was, whose name was Peter.
Ms Williams' evidence was that she took the car the subject of count 1 because she was told she was getting fined. She was told that by Ms Le and some other people mentioned it as well. Late one night, Ms Williams was at the house in Osborne Park waiting for someone to show up when Ms Le asked her what she was going to do about all the fines. Ms Williams replied that she was not going to pay their fines. Ms Williams' counsel asked her whether or not there was any discussion about what the fines were. Ms Williams' evidence was 'Not really'.
Ms Williams' evidence was that it had been said previously that 'clubs and that' were fining Ms Williams for behaving inappropriately, basically for poaching customers and selling in car parks near where they were, within their territory.
Ms Williams' counsel asked her who was telling her these things. Ms Williams' evidence was that the people telling her were Minh Le, Peter, whose house she was staying at, and some other people she ran into. Ms Williams said that she was not able to name the other people that she ran into who told her these things.
In cross‑examination, Ms Williams said that Peter told her that the first fine was $5,000.
Ms Williams gave evidence that, after she said that she was not going to pay their fines, the people she was speaking to said that the people who were fining her would take her children and hurt them, because they wanted their money. Ms Williams' evidence was that the people who were fining her were probably the bikies that Ms Le was living with. She knew that Ms Le was living with bikies because Peter had told her that Ms Le was living at a clubhouse.
Ms Williams' evidence was that, at first, she did not believe that her kids would be taken. However, she started paying more attention because she was hearing things. She heard a car pull up next door and children screaming inside. No children lived inside the house. Ms Williams thought that the people who were fining her had taken her children.
Her evidence was that she then started to get a bit desperate and trying to find ways to make the money to pay the fines. She did any work she could get. Ms Williams' counsel asked her what then happened. Ms Williams said that they said they were going to put a loan on her. Ms Williams' evidence was that a loan is the price that they put on your head and that, if you do not pay, they will knock you. Ms Williams' counsel asked her who told her that, or how she became aware of that. Ms Williams' evidence was that it was the people around her telling her. Her counsel asked if she could name who was telling her and her evidence was 'Not really'. A little later in her evidence, Ms Williams said that by 'knocked' she meant 'knocked off, shot probably'.
Ms Williams gave evidence that other things were also happening. They picked up the man that she was seeing and beat him up really badly, putting him in hospital twice. In her evidence‑in‑chief, Ms Williams' counsel asked her if she could name the person that she was seeing. Ms Williams said that she would not do so because she was worried about people. She was concerned that people were going to get hurt again. In cross-examination, following a direction from me to name the person to whom she was referring, Ms Williams said that his name was Alfred, but that she could not remember his last name.

Ms Williams' evidence was Alfred was first hospitalised on 31 October and that she took him to hospital. The second time that he went to hospital was after November 4. Her evidence was that Alfred told her that the people who were fining her beat him up. Her counsel asked her if she was able to name who it was that she believed was fining her. Her evidence was that she could not, because she does not know their names.
Ms Williams' counsel asked if there were any other threats against her. Ms Williams said that there were, that they were the same as before, that they were going to come and get her and that they were going to 'knock her' if she did not pay the fines and did not pay the loan. Ms William's evidence was that this communication was coming from a few different people, word gets around pretty quickly she said. Her counsel asked if she could name anyone who communicated these threats to her. Ms Williams said that she could not really name anyone because the danger is still out there and things could get really bad if she talked.
Her counsel asked her if there was any reason why she did not call the police. Ms Williams' evidence was that she did not do so because the people she was talking to told her that the police already knew about it, that they were not going to do anything about it, and that the police were not there to help her. Ms Williams said that this sounded about right because the police do not usually get involved in these 'sort' of things. Ms Williams' counsel asked what made her think that police don't usually get involved. Ms Williams said that that was what she was told.
Ms Williams' counsel asked her if an amount of the fines was mentioned. Ms Williams' answer to that question was that when they said about the loan they said that it was $50,000. Her evidence was that she was told this by a guy named Steve, whose surname she does not know. She does not really know Steve. She was at a friend's house and Steve came over and told her that her daughter was missing. He asked what she was to do about it and said that it was now a loan of $50,000.
She also gave evidence that Steve told her that she was going to be 'knocked'. Counsel for Ms Williams asked her if she knew who was going to 'knock' her. Ms Williams' evidence was that she had a vague idea of what was going on, which was that the fines had accumulated and so that is what they were going to do. The fines started out at $5,000 each. They kept piling up because she refused to pay them. Then they said that it had become a loan. Then when she was told her daughter was missing, she knew that something was really wrong and she had to do something about it quickly.
Ms Williams said that this conversation occurred at a friend's house in Nollamara. She did not know this friend's name, he was just someone she had met recently. This conversation took place in the kitchen of the house. The only people present in the kitchen were Ms Williams and Steve.
Ms Williams' evidence that her conversation with Steve took place in the afternoon and that she came to be in the house because she was walking back to a friend's house in Osborne Park the previous night. She had a shot and then ran into Ms Le. Ms Le telephoned someone and a man came and picked them up and took them to his house in Nollamara.
Ms Williams' evidence was that this conversation took place after she had committed the robbery in Wembley.
Ms Williams' counsel asked her why she did not tell police about this conversation. She said that she did not do so because she was told that the police were not interested and that, when she told the police about the conversation, they were not interested. She told the police about the conversation after the offences when she was being interviewed.
In cross‑examination, Ms Williams was asked about this conversation with Steve. Her evidence was that the first thing that she did after she was told this was to ring an employee of the police department. Her evidence was that the person said 'Look, sorry, they won't be able to help you with that', and hung up. Counsel for the State asked her for the name of this person. Ms Williams said that she did not wish to provide the name of this person. I gave a direction to Ms Williams that she answer the question. Ms Williams did not do so. She said that her life was not worth anything if she answered the question.
Counsel for the State asked Ms Williams in cross‑examination whether she asked Steve where her child was. She said that she did not. There was no point in doing so because he 'had already said that he was not on the same team' and she did not trust or respect him.
Ms Williams' counsel asked when, in relation to the facts of count 3 when Ms Williams attempted to rob a person of a BMW, this conversation had taken place. Ms Williams gave evidence that the night before she attempted to steal the BMW she was told that her debt was $400,000. In the same answer, she changed when that conversation occurred to it having occurred eight days before she attempted to steal the BMW. She said that the interest was going up by $50,000 at midnight every night. It was difficult to follow her evidence, but she seemed to be saying that there were two conversations with Steve. The first was a conversation that occurred eight days before she attempted to steal the BMW and the second conversation occurred the night before she attempted to steal the BMW. In that second conversation, she was told that the debt was going up by $50,000 a night and it was $400,000. She was also told by people around her that interest was going up $50,000 at midnight every night.
She then gave evidence that the night before she attempted to steal the BMW, Alfred told her that the criminals who were claiming money from her were picking up her children every time that the loan went up and that they would keep hurting her children if she did not clear the loan.
Ms Williams gave evidence that, after she stole money at the ANZ Bank in Booragoon, she went to try and drop the money off. At approximately 5.00 am, she received a text message on her phone from a man she did not know who did not identify himself. She knew that this person was a man because the other messages had been from a man. She then gave evidence that she received a phone call from the man at 4.00 am. She could hear arguing in the background but there was not anyone on the phone. She heard that she had to be at Joondalup. She then received the text message which told her to go to 'the pines', which she believed to be in Joondalup.
She then gave evidence that, after the robbery, she drove around Kardinya looking for where she was supposed to drop the money off. She did that because, after the robbery at the Westpac bank in Dianella, she went to go to Joondalup, but she received a voice mail message from her ex who said 'What are you worried about him for. These guys have got your kids. Come to Kardinya.' She had no direction as to where to go in Kardinya and she could not find where she was supposed to drop off the money. Her car then broke down. She telephoned Ms Le to ask her if she knew anyone who had jumper leads who could give her a start. Ms Le sent a taxi and Ms Williams got into the taxi.
The taxi driver drove her around. He would not take her where Ms Williams told him to go. He told her that those places did not exist. The taxi driver then took her back to his place in Koondoola. She had been using the taxi driver's phone to try to call the man she was seeing. The taxi driver told her to wait with him and have a drink until her friend rang back. Ms Williams was arrested that day.
Ms Williams was later released on bail. She lived with her mother in Esperance. Her mother was unwell and passed away on 11 December 2014. Ms Williams was admitted to the mental health care section of Kalgoorlie hospital for a week. She later moved to Fremantle.
Ms Williams gave evidence that on 31 March 2015 she was on a bus. A person she did not know spoke to her on the bus. This man told her that the man's friend had Ms Williams's children and he was taking them away. He told her that she had better hurry up and go to meet him quickly. Ms Williams did not know who this man was talking about. She got off the bus at the next stop. She walked up the first car that she saw and said 'I need your car'. She said that because she needed to go and get her children as she does not like them being with strangers.
She was not successful in taking the car and she was subsequently arrested by police. She has been in custody or in hospital since then. She is taking Seroquel medication and anti‑inflammatories. She has been taking Seroquel since she was arrested.
Ms Williams is now in custody. She gave evidence that, in prison, other persons in custody have asked her basic questions such as 'Are you going to pay them their money' and that 'sort' of thing.

Conclusions as to evidence

Much of Ms Williams' evidence was implausible.
Her evidence that she was told that she was being fined, but that there were no real discussions about what the fines were, and that she was told that if she did not pay them, her children would be taken and hurt, is not believable. If Ms Williams had been told that criminals were imposing a penalty on her, if she believed that the penalties were being imposed because she sold drugs in the territory of those criminals and if she believed that those criminals were threatening harm to her children then, in my view, Ms Williams would have either endeavoured to make herself and her children unable to be taken and hurt by those criminals or she would have endeavoured to find out how she could resolve the dispute with them.
Her evidence that she was told these things not only by Ms Le and the man Peter with whom she was living, but also some other people that she ran into who she cannot name, is implausible. If criminals had wanted to convey these messages to Ms Williams, it is not believable that they would have conveyed those messages in that casual and random way. It is also not believable that a variety of people, some of whom Ms Williams did not know, would pass on serious threats in the way she described. I do not accept Ms Williams' evidence that she was told that she was being 'fined'. I do not accept her evidence that she was told that if she did not pay the fines her children would be kidnapped and hurt. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence is not true.
Her evidence that she heard a car pull up and children screaming inside the house, that she believed that the children she heard screaming were her own children and that she then tried to find ways to get money to pay the fines is not believable. I do not accept that if Ms Williams believed that her children had been kidnapped and were screaming in the house next door to her she would respond by trying to find out how to get money. If Ms Williams had heard those things then she would have gone, or arranged for people to go, to the house next door to try to save or protect or minimise the harm to the children. I do not accept her evidence that she heard a car pull up and children screaming inside the house next door and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence is not true.
Her evidence that she was told by people around her, who she is not really able to name, that the criminals were going to put a loan on her, which is the price that they put on a person's head, and that if the loan is not paid then the person is murdered, is not credible. If criminals wished to convey to Ms Williams that the fines had been transferred to a loan and that if she did not pay the loan then she would be murdered, they would not have used several people around her. They would have used a person or persons to convey the message specifically and clearly. It is not believable that a variety of people would pass on serious threats in the way she described. If Ms Williams had been told that she would be murdered if she did not pay the loan, she would have either endeavoured to ensure that these criminals could not find her or that she was protected or she would have endeavoured to find out how she could resolve the dispute with them. I do not accept Ms Williams' evidence that she was told that the criminals were going to put a loan on her and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence is not true.
I do not accept Ms Williams' evidence that the man Alfred was assaulted so badly that he had to be hospitalised, nor that he told her that that the people who were 'fining' her beat him up. If that had happened, Ms Williams would have wanted to find out who were the people who did these things to Alfred and she would have wanted either to deal with these people or place herself and Alfred in a position where these criminals could not harm them. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence is not true.
I also do not accept Ms Williams' evidence that she received other threats that people were going to come and get her and that they were going to 'knock' her if she did not pay the fines and did not pay the loan. Ms William's evidence was that this communication was coming from a few different people as word gets around pretty quickly. If criminals wished to convey to Ms Williams that if she did not pay the fines and loan then she would be murdered, they would not have used several people around her relying upon word getting around. It is also not believable that a variety of people would pass on threats to Ms Williams in the way she described. If Ms Williams had been told that she would be murdered if she did not pay the criminals, she would have either endeavoured to ensure that these criminals could not find her or that she was protected or she would have endeavoured to find out how she could resolve the dispute with them. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this evidence is not true.
As I do not accept Ms Williams' evidence of these conversations, I do not accept her evidence that she did not contact the police because these people told her that the police were not going to do anything about the threats. I also note that this evidence is inconsistent with her evidence given in cross‑examination that she did contact a person employed by the police department. This inconsistency reinforces my conclusion that I reject the evidence. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it is not true.
I do not accept Ms Williams' evidence of her conversation with Steve about her being 'knocked' and about her daughter being missing, that she telephoned a person employed by the police department about her daughter being taken and that this person said that the police will not be able to help with that and hung up. If Ms Williams had been told that her daughter was missing she would have wanted to know some basic information such as which daughter was missing, for how long she had been missing and whether anything was known about her daughter's whereabouts. Even if she did not trust or respect the man who told her that her daughter was missing, she would have asked him questions to see what information she could obtain from him. If Ms Williams believed that her daughter had been kidnapped and she wished to contact police, she would not have limited her attempts to contact police by making one telephone call to a person she knew who was not a police officer and who gave a casual and dismissive response to her call. Ms Williams did not give evidence about this telephone conversation in her evidence‑in‑chief. This confirms my conclusion that the telephone conversation did not occur. If it had occurred, then she would have given evidence about it in answer to questions from her counsel. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams' evidence of her conversation with Steve about her daughter being missing and her evidence of a telephone conversation with an employee of the police department are not true.
Ms Williams gave evidence that, before she committed the offences on 27 November 2012, she was told that her indebtedness to criminals had reached $400,000 and that the debt was increasing by $50,000 every night. She also gave evidence that Alfred told her that the criminals who were claiming money from her were picking up her children every time that the loan went up and that they would keep hurting her children if she did not clear the loan.
I do not accept any of that evidence. Ms Williams had no chance of paying $400,000 and no chance of paying $50,000 a day. There would have been no point in anyone telling her that she was so indebted. If Ms Williams had been told that her children were being taken and hurt every time that the indebtedness increased, she would have endeavoured to make contact with these people, either directly or through the people who knew them, to stop this occurring. She would also have contacted the police directly. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence is not true.
I do not accept Ms Williams' evidence of the telephone calls and message telling her to take money to Kardinya and to Joondalup. If a person or persons had contacted Ms Williams to tell her to deliver the money she had, they would have told her precisely where to deliver that money so that she could do so.
I also do not accept Ms Williams' evidence that, on 31 March 2015, she was told by a man on a bus that the man's friend had Ms Williams's children and he was taking them away. It is not believable that a person on a bus who she did not know told her that another person she did not know had taken her children. If she had been told that, then Ms Williams would not have got off the bus to get a car to go to the man because she did not know who the man was or where he was. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this evidence is not true.
I do not accept Ms Williams' evidence that persons in custody have asked her if she is 'going to pay them their money'. It is obvious that Ms Williams cannot pay any money and there would be no point in these questions being asked.
I have rejected all of Ms Williams' evidence of being told of her indebtedness to criminals, of her being told of threats of harm to her and her children and of Alfred being injured. I have rejected this evidence due to the implausibility of that evidence. The assessment is not based on Ms Williams' demeanour. Ms Williams appeared to believe what she was saying. Even when she was inconsistent in her evidence and gave evidence of matters that seemed implausible, she appeared to believe what she was saying. When Ms Williams was stealing the Mazda from Ms Heather Hood, she told Ms Hood that she had to do it for her children. This tends to confirm that Ms Williams has had a long‑standing belief that she needed to do commit robberies for the benefit of her children. I have concluded that Ms Williams did believe the matters of which she gave evidence.

Whether the State has proved each charge

In count 1, Ms Williams is charged with stealing a motor vehicle. Ms Williams admits the elements of identity, that she used the vehicle and that the vehicle was stolen, so she admits that she did so without the consent of the owner of the vehicle.
Ms Williams' evidence was that she took the car the subject of count 1 because she was told she was getting 'fined'. She was told that by Ms Le, Peter and some other people she ran into.
When she said that she was not going to pay their fines, the people she was speaking to said that the people who were fining her would take her children and hurt them because they wanted their money. She heard a car pull up next door and children screaming inside. Ms Williams thought that the people who were fining her had taken her children.
Ms Williams also gave evidence that the people to whom she was speaking said the people who were fining her were going to put a loan on her. Ms Williams' evidence was that a loan is the price that they put on your head, and that if the person does not pay it, they will be murdered.

Ms Williams also gave evidence that Alfred was assaulted so badly that he required admission to hospital twice.
This evidence raises for consideration the issue of duress.
I have concluded that Ms Williams did believe the matters of which she gave evidence. The State has not satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams did not believe threats had been made, nor that she did not believe that threat would be carried out unless she did the acts which constituted count 1 nor that she did not believe that the doing of those acts was necessary to prevent the threats being carried out.
However, the State has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that there were no reasonable grounds for those beliefs. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams was not told by anyone that she was getting fined. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams was not told by anyone that if she did not pay the money demanded of her then her children would be taken and hurt. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams did not hear children screaming in the house next door to where she was living. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams was not told by anyone that people were going to put a loan on her with the result that if she did not pay the moneys claimed she would be murdered. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the man, Alfred, was not assaulted and that he did not require admission to hospital. I put Ms Williams' evidence as to these matters aside. There is no evidence that there were reasonable grounds for Ms Williams' beliefs.
Further, even if I had concluded that all of Ms Williams' evidence were true and there were reasonable grounds for Ms Williams' beliefs, I would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the commission of count 1 was not a reasonable response to the threats in the circumstances that Ms Williams believed them to be. Ms Williams' evidence was that moneys were demanded of her by drug dealers because she had been selling drugs to their customers. There are strong public policy reasons why persons in such a situation should go to police rather than commit an offence.[6] While the failure to report threats to police will not necessarily be fatal to the defence of duress, for it not to remove the availability of the defence, there needs to be an explanation or reasons apparent from the circumstances for the failure to seek protection of the law enforcement authorities.[7] Ms Williams said that she did not go to police because people who were passing on the threats told her that police would not be interested. This does not provide any reasonable basis not to report the threats to police.
[6] Smith v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 205.
[7] Smith v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 205 [183].
The State has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams is guilty of count 1.
In count 2, Ms Williams is charged with armed robbery. Ms Williams admits the element of identity, that she took the sum of $500, that she physically did so by her act of reaching into the cash register and taking the money, that the money was the property of Gaudy Investments Pty Ltd, and that she was armed with a knife. The only inference reasonably available from the facts of this charge that Ms Williams admitted is that when she took the money out of the till in the circumstances in which she did she intended to permanently deprive the owner of the money and that she intended to use the money at her will. Ms Williams' conduct in demanding the till be opened and telling the manager to go back while brandishing the knife constitutes threatening to use violence to obtain the money.
In this count, the facts for consideration on the issue of duress are exactly the same facts that I considered on count 1. For the same reasons as I held that the defence of duress was not available on count 1, it is not available on count 2.
The State has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams is guilty of count 2.
In count 3, Ms Williams is charged with attempted armed robbery. Ms Williams has admitted the element of identity, that she did not obtain the motor vehicle and that she was armed with a knife. The only inference reasonably available from the facts of this charge that Ms Williams admitted is that she intended to take the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner or person in charge of that motor vehicle. The fact that the owner of the vehicle is incorrectly particularised in count 3 does not alter that conclusion. Her admitted conduct constitutes the doing of acts to put that intention into effect, that were more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. Ms Williams' conduct in producing a knife and demanding the keys to the vehicle constitutes threatening to use violence to obtain the vehicle.
Ms Williams' evidence was that she did these things after the events that I have summarised when discussing whether the State had proved count 1. In addition, Ms Williams gave evidence that after she had committed counts 1 and 2, she had a conversation with Steve who told her that her daughter was missing and he asked what she was to do about it and said that it was now a loan of $50,000. She also gave evidence that Steve told her that she was going to be 'knocked'. She also gave evidence that soon after this conversation with Steve, she telephoned a person who worked for the police who told her that police would not be able to help her with that. She also gave evidence that before she committed the offences on 27 November 2012, she was told that her indebtedness to criminals had reached $400,000, that the debt was increasing by $50,000 every night, and that Alfred told her that the criminals who were claiming money from her were picking up her children every time that the loan went up and that they would keep hurting her children if she did not clear the loan.
For reasons that I have given, I do not accept any of that evidence. I put Ms Williams' evidence as to these matters aside.
For reasons I have given when considering whether the State had proved count 1, the State has not satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams did not believe threats had been made, nor that she did not believe that threat would be carried out unless she did the acts which constituted count 1, nor that she did not believe that the doing of those acts was necessary to prevent the threats being carried out.
However, the State has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that there were no reasonable grounds for those beliefs because I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams did not have the conversations of which she gave evidence.
Further, even if I had concluded that all of Ms Williams' evidence were true and there were reasonable grounds for Ms Williams' beliefs, I would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the commission of count 1 was not a reasonable response to the threats in the circumstances that Ms Williams believed them to be. As I have said when discussing count 1, there are strong public policy reasons why persons who are threatened should go to police rather than commit an offence. Even if Ms Williams had the telephone conversation with a person who works for the police of which she gave evidence her conduct in committing the offence was not a reasonable response to the threats. Ms Williams should not have stopped with such a telephone conversation. She should have approached police officers directly.
The State has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams is guilty of count 3.
In count 4, Ms Williams is charged with stealing a mobile telephone. Ms Williams admits that she stole the mobile phone. She therefore admits the elements of identity, the taking of the mobile phone, the moving of it by a physical act, that she intended to permanently deprive the owner of the phone of it and that the mobile phone belonged to Mr Tonkin.
In this count, the facts for consideration on the issue of duress are exactly the same facts that I considered on count 3. For the same reasons as I held that the defence of duress was not available on count, 3 it is not available on count 4.
The State has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams is guilty of count 4.
In count 5, Ms Williams is charged with armed robbery in the circumstance of aggravation that the complainant was of or over the age of 60 years. Ms Williams has admitted the elements of identity, that she drove the motor vehicle, that she was armed with a knife and that the complainant was over the age of 60 years. The facts admitted, including the fact that Ms Hood called out that she was being robbed lead me to conclude that the only inference reasonably available is that the car was taken without Ms Hood's consent. Ms Williams' conduct in demanding the keys to the vehicle and holding a knife to the complainant's neck constitutes threatening to use violence to obtain the vehicle.
In this count, the facts for consideration on the issue of duress are exactly the same facts that I considered on count 3. For the same reasons as I held that the defence of duress was not available on count 3, it is not available on count 5.
The State has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams is guilty of count 5.
In count 6, Ms Williams is charged with robbery. Ms Williams admits the element of identity, that she took the sum of $700, that she physically did so by her act of reaching into the cash drawer and taking the money and that the money was the property of Westpac Banking Corporation. The only inference reasonably available from the facts of this charge that Ms Williams admitted is that when she took the money in the circumstances in which she did, she intended to permanently deprive the owner of the money and that she intended to use the money at her will. Ms Williams' conduct in approaching the bank teller with the hood of her jumper over her head, wearing large sunglasses, moving her hands in her jumper in an agitated fashion and then taking one hand out of her jumper and pointing to cash immediately after saying: 'I want you to get a bag and put all your money in it' constitutes threatening to use violence to obtain the money.
In this count, the facts for consideration on the issue of duress are exactly the same facts that I considered on count 3. For the same reasons as I held that the defence of duress was not available on count 3, it is not available on count 6.
The State has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams is guilty of count 6.
In count 7, Ms Williams is charged with armed robbery. Ms Williams admits the element of identity, that she took the sum of $1,450, that she physically did so by taking the money when it was handed to her by the teller, that the money was the property of ANZ Banking Corporation Australia Ltd, and that she was armed with a knife. The only inference reasonably available from the facts that Ms Williams admitted is that when she took the money in the circumstances in which she did, she intended to permanently deprive the owner of the money and that she intended to use the money at her will. Ms Williams' conduct in demanding the money and producing the knife constitutes threatening to use violence to obtain the money.
In this count, the facts for consideration on the issue of duress are exactly the same facts that I considered on count 3. For the same reasons as I held that the defence of duress was not available on count 3, it is not available on count 7.
The State has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams is guilty of count 7.
In count 8, Ms Williams is charged with attempted armed robbery. Ms Williams has admitted the element of identity, that she did not obtain the motor vehicle, and that she was armed with a knife. The only inference reasonably available from the facts of this charge that Ms Williams admitted is that she intended to take the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. Her admitted conduct constitutes the doing of acts to put that intention into effect that were more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. Ms Williams' conduct in producing a knife and demanding the vehicle constitutes threatening to use violence to obtain the vehicle.
This conduct occurred in 2015. Even if the matters of which Ms Williams had given evidence that occurred in 2012 had occurred and Ms Williams had given evidence that those matters caused her to attempt to steal the motor vehicle, the defence of duress would not provide any defence to this charge for the reasons that I have given when I was discussing the offences committed in 2012. In any event, Ms Williams' evidence was that she committed the offence because a man on a bus told her that the man's friend had Ms Williams's children and he was taking them away and she needed the car to go and get her children as she does not like them being with strangers. I do not accept that evidence. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it is not true. Even if it were true, Ms Williams did not believe that her children would be taken away if she committed the offence of stealing a car. Her evidence was that she wanted to get to her children quickly. There are other ways of getting to a place quickly that can be tried before attempting to steal a car, including asking for a lift, taking a taxi and calling police. In any event, as the conversation did not happen, there were no reasonable grounds for Ms Williams' beliefs.
The State has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Williams is guilty of count 8.