Williams v R

Williams was convicted of dangerous driving occasioning death and grievous bodily harm and appealed against his conviction and sentence. The appeal raised issues concerning the application of Rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules, the role of counsel during the trial, and the objective seriousness of the offence. The trial judge had proceeded with the trial after Williams absconded, with counsel remaining. The appeal court considered whether Rule 4 applied in circumstances where counsel continued to represent the accused despite the latter's absence. The court concluded that the rule applied and that the counsel's presence did not preclude the application of the rule.

The court also examined whether Williams remained the driver of the vehicle at the time of the impact, given that his passenger had grabbed the steering wheel. The appeal court found that Williams was still the driver and that the passenger's action did not absolve him of responsibility. Furthermore, the court addressed the discretion to continue the trial in the absence of the accused, who had absconded, and found that the trial judge had not erred in proceeding without Williams. Finally, the court considered the objective seriousness of the offence and whether the passenger's action mitigated the severity of the crime. The appeal court determined that the passenger's action did not sufficiently reduce the objective seriousness of the offence and that there was no error in the accumulation of sentences.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the law, and there were no grounds for a new trial or sentence variation. The appeal court emphasised the importance of following procedural rules and the role of counsel in criminal trials. The decision underscores the principle that the accused's absence does not automatically preclude the continuation of the trial, provided that the accused's rights are protected and the trial is conducted fairly. The court's findings also highlight the need for careful consideration of the objective seriousness of offences involving dangerous driving and the impact of passengers' actions on the driver's responsibility.