Williams, Peter Edward Charles v The Queen - [2017] NSWCCA 7

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Williams, Peter Edward Charles v R [2017] NSWCCA 7
Hearing dates: 31 January 2017
Date of orders: 08 February 2017
Decision date: 08 February 2017
Before: Bathurst CJ
Johnson J
Fagan J
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal sentence – detain for advantage – applicant not responsible for criminal acts of co-offenders beyond his presence and contemplation – vigilante purpose of detention to enforce perceived claim of right – whether sentence manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130; 221 A Crim R 175
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Edward Charles Williams (applicant)
Regina (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr William Hussey (applicant)
Mr Eric Balodis (respondent)
Solicitors:
Mr Mark Hanlon, Lambton Law Solicitors (applicant)
Mr Craig Hyland, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/82353
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

21 April 2016

Before:

Robison DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/82353

Judgment

THE COURT: Peter Edward Williams applies for leave to appeal the sentence passed upon him on 21 April 2016 by his Honour Judge Robison in the District Court at Newcastle. He had pleaded guilty to one count of taking and detaining another person for advantage in circumstances of special aggravation, contrary to s 86(3) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offence was committed on 26 November 2013. The statutory elements of special aggravation consisted in the applicant acting in concert with five other men to detain the victim and in the infliction of actual bodily harm by one of the other men punching the victim in the face.
Subsection (3) of s 86 prescribes a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period. The learned judge imposed a sentence of 3 years and 3 months comprising a non-parole period of 1 year 9 months and a balance of term of 1 year 6 months. The applicant had been on bail up until the commencement of the sentence hearing on 20 April 2016. It was ordered that his sentence commence from that date.
Grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. The learned sentencing judge erred in sentencing the applicant upon a more serious basis than was justified by the agreed facts before the Court.
2. In all the circumstances some other and less severe sentence is warranted in law and should…

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 Williams, Peter Edward Charles v The Queen 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: [2017] NSWCCA 7
Decision Date: 08 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Williams, Peter Edward Charles v The Queen, the High Court of Australia was called upon to assess an application for leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed following a criminal conviction. The applicant, Williams, had been found guilty of detaining another individual for advantage. The case raised questions about the extent of an individual's responsibility for the actions of co-offenders, particularly when the detention was motivated by a vigilante purpose to enforce a perceived claim of right. The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in light of the unique circumstances surrounding the offence and the applicant's role within it.

The court considered the principle that an individual should not be held accountable for the actions of co-perpetrators beyond their presence and contemplation. It was acknowledged that Williams had not directly participated in the most severe aspects of the crime but had facilitated the detention as part of a vigilante action. The court further examined whether the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence while considering the mitigating factors, including the applicant's role and the broader context of the crime. The court's analysis involved a careful balancing of these factors to determine if the sentence was proportionate and just.

Upon reviewing the arguments and evidence, the High Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that while Williams' involvement was significant, the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature and impact of the crime. The court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances, including the applicant's role and the specific context of the offence. As a result, the application for leave to appeal the sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was denied, and the original sentence remained in effect. This decision upheld the importance of proportionality in sentencing, while also recognising the limits of an individual's responsibility for the actions of others in criminal enterprises.

Orders