Williams-Savage v The Queen

Case [2022] ACTCA 58

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Williams-Savage v The Queen

Citation:

[2022] ACTCA 58

Hearing Date:

15 August 2022

DecisionDate:

26 October 2022

Before:

Elkaim, Kennett and Collier JJ   

Decision:

(1) The sentences under appeal are confirmed.

(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence appeal – Whether individual sentences or total sentence manifestly excessive –appeal dismissed – sentence under appeal confirmed

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 35A

Cases Cited:

Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26

Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58
Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
Cajina v The Queen [2009] ACTCA 2; 3 ACTLR 79
Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 9
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428
Kelly v the Queen [2021] ACTCA 15
Le Clair v The Queen; Achanfuo-Yeboah v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19
Love v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 8
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17; 256 CLR 656
O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Bessant [2020] ACTSC 365
R v BI (No 4) [2017] ACTSC 71
R v Dawson [2022] ACTSC 64
R v Ellis (1993) 68 A Crim R 449
R v Elphick [2021] ACTSC 9
R v Hancock [2021] ACTSC 52
R v Knight [2005] NSWCCA 253; 155 A Crim R 252
R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159
R v Massey (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156
R v McMahon [2014] ACTSC 94
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550
R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217
R v Steen [2020] ACTSC 222
R v Tonna [2020] ACTSC 360
R v UG [2020] ACTCA 8; 281 A Crim R 273
R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34
Tracey v Queen [2020] ACTCA 51

Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

Parties:

Jacob Williams-Savage ( Appellant)

The Queen ( Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Self-represented ( Appellant)

J Hiscox ( Respondent)

Solicitors

Self-represented ( Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 53 of 2021

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             Supreme Court of the ACT

Before:  Mossop J

Date of Decision:          14 October 2021

Case Title:  R v Williams-Savage

Citation: [2021] ACTSC 271

THE COURT:

1.     The appellant appeals from a sentence imposed by Mossop J (the Sentencing Judge) on 14 October 2021.  There were thirty offences before the Court, arising out of a series of incidents that took place on 5, 8, 11, 12 and 13 April 2020.  The aggregate sentence imposed was a sentence of imprisonment of eight years and six months, with a nonparole period of four years’ imprisonment.

2.…

Continue reading Williams-Savage v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Williams-Savage v The Queen [2022] ACTCA 58
Case
[2022] ACTCA 58
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Williams-Savage, appealed against sentences imposed by the District Court of New South Wales. The appeal concerned whether the individual sentences, or the total sentence, were manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by Elkaim, Kennett and Collier JJ of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing sentences that were demonstrably too severe, such that they could be characterised as "manifestly excessive". This required the Court to consider the totality of the offending and the appellant's circumstances in determining if the cumulative effect of the sentences was unjust.

The Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed the sentencing remarks of the trial judge and the evidence presented. It applied the established principles for assessing manifest excess, which involve a high threshold requiring the sentence to be clearly and obviously wrong. Having considered the gravity of the offences and the appellant's criminal history, the Court concluded that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive.

Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed the sentences under appeal and dismissed the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The sentences under appeal are confirmed.

(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.