Legal Research
Cases
Williams v R

Williams v R

Case [2021] NSWCCA 25 3 March 2021

Appeal

Unconscionable Conduct

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v R [2021] NSWCCA 25
Hearing dates: 15 February 2021
Decision date: 03 March 2021
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; R A Hulme J at [2]; Adamson J at [3]
Decision:
(1)   Reject the affidavit of Ben Cochrane affirmed 1 February 2021 on the ground of relevance.
(2)   Grant leave to the appellant to appeal.
(3)   Dismiss the appeal.
(4) Pursuant to s 28A(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), the applicant’s sentence is to recommence on 3 March 2021.
(5) The Court notes for the purpose of s 18(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act that the period of 75 days, being from 18 December 2020 to 2 March 2021 (inclusive of both dates), does not count as part of the sentence of imprisonment imposed in the District Court on 22 July 2020.
(6) The Court notes for the purpose of s 48 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) that the non-parole period will now expire on 4 June 2022 upon which date the applicant will be eligible for release on parole.
(7)   The sentence will now expire on 3 October 2023.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Unreasonable verdict – whether Murray direction required in respect of complainant’s evidence
CRIME – Appeals – trial by judge alone – adequacy of reasons

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW), Pt 5
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 48
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 28A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 18, 33, 133, 294AA
Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual and Other Offences) Act 2006 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 116, 165, 177

Cases Cited:
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63
Ewen v R [2015] NSWCCA 117
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68
Kaifotov R [2006] NSWCCA 186
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12; (2020) 94 ALJR 394
R v Baartman [2000] NSWCCA 298
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Patrick Williams (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Lawrence (Appellant)
K Jeffreys (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ritchie Lawyers (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/234957
Publication restriction: Non-publication of any information or material that may lead to the identification of the complainant (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 578A).
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Crime

Date of Decision:

22 July 2020

Before:

Priestley SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/234957

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Adamson J and the orders which she proposes.
R…

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.

Continue reading Williams v R

Details

AGLC: Williams v R [2021] NSWCCA 25
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 25
Decision Date: 03 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Williams v R, the appellant, Williams, was convicted by a judge sitting alone in the Supreme Court of Queensland of three counts of rape. The case came before the Queensland Court of Appeal, where Williams appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge had failed to give a Murray direction in relation to the evidence of the complainant and that the reasons provided for the conviction were inadequate. The respondent, the Crown, argued that the Murray direction was not required and that the reasons provided were sufficient.

The appeal raised two primary legal issues. The first concerned whether the trial judge was required to give a Murray direction in relation to the complainant's evidence. The second issue was whether the trial judge's reasons for the conviction were adequate. The Murray direction is a warning that must be given to the jury when a complainant's evidence is the only evidence of a fact in issue and is not supported by any other evidence. However, in a trial by judge alone, there is no jury, and the requirement for a Murray direction is less clear. The adequacy of reasons is an important aspect of ensuring a fair trial, and the appellate court must be satisfied that the trial judge's reasons are sufficient to enable meaningful scrutiny of the decision.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was not required to give a Murray direction in this case. The court held that the Murray direction is not an absolute requirement in all cases where the complainant's evidence is uncorroborated, but rather a warning that should be given when necessary to ensure a fair trial. In this case, the court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the complainant's evidence and that there was no need for a Murray direction. The court also found that the reasons provided by the trial judge were sufficient. The trial judge had considered all the evidence and provided clear reasons for the conviction, which were sufficient to enable meaningful scrutiny of the decision.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in law or failed to adequately consider the evidence, and that the convictions were safe and accurate. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that trial judges provide adequate reasons for their decisions, but found that the reasons provided in this case were sufficient.

Orders