Legal Research
Cases
WILLIAMS v R

WILLIAMS v R

Case [2010] NSWCCA 15 16 February 2010

Appeal

Sentencing

Causation

Nature and Circumstances of Offence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Williams v R [2010] NSWCCA 15

HEARING DATE(S): 14 December 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 February 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Simpson J at 27; Hidden J at 28

DECISION: 1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - appeal against sentence - grounds for interference - judge acted on wrong principle - other matters - sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate - CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - interpretation of sentencing provisions - relevant factors - nature and circumstances of offence - premeditation and method of execution

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Clinton v R [2009] NSWCCA 276
England & Phanith v R [2009] NSWCCA 274
Fahs v R [2007] NSWCCA 26
R v Ponfield [1999] NSWCCA 435; 48 NSWLR 327

PARTIES: Brett Michael Williams (Applicant)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/6496

COUNSEL: D O'Neil (Applicant)
F Veltro (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2006/6496

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Black DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 16 May 2008

2006/6496

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
HIDDEN J
TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2010

WILLIAMS, Brett Michael v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: The applicant was convicted after trial of one count that between 21 and 26 February 2004 at Limpinwood he did break and enter a dwelling and steal various art works, artists equipment and household and personal goods. The offence is contrary to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.

2 The applicant was sentenced to a non-parole period of 3 years 9 months with an overall term of 5 years. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

3 The remarks on sentence do not contain a clear account of his Honour’s factual findings. However, his Honour refers to various matters in the course of considering the relevant sentencing principles and the facts which are presently relevant do not appear to be in dispute.

4 The victim was an artist and restorer of art works. He worked from his home which is situated in an isolated and remote rural location in northern New South Wales. The only access is from a winding dirt road. The premises are not visible from the road and at times of inclement weather are only accessible by using a 4-wheel drive vehicle. Electricity was provided to the premises by a generator and batteries which were located under the house in an obscure location. There was a burglar alarm at the premises which consisted of a siren on the roof which when activated could be heard from the neighbouring community. The doors to the premises were made of thick timber having been relocated from a church. They were equipped with key operated dead locks.

5 On the…

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 [2010] NSWCCA 15
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 15
Decision Date: 16 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williams v R involves an appeal against the sentence handed down by a lower court. The appellant, Williams, was convicted of a serious criminal offence and was subsequently sentenced. Williams sought to appeal the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the court, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was indeed excessive or whether it was appropriate in the circumstances. The court had to consider the relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the degree of premeditation, and the method of execution.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the judge had acted on the wrong principle in determining the sentence, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court was required to interpret the relevant sentencing provisions and weigh the factors that should be taken into account when imposing a sentence. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the crime and did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors. The prosecution, on the other hand, maintained that the sentence was fair and appropriate given the gravity of the offence.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The court held that the judge had failed to properly consider all the relevant factors when imposing the sentence, and that the sentence did not adequately reflect the degree of premeditation and the method of execution. The court also noted that the sentence was disproportionate to the crime committed. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and ordered that a new sentencing hearing be conducted. The final orders of the court were that the original sentence be quashed, and that a new sentence be imposed following a proper consideration of all the relevant factors.

Orders