Legal Research
Cases
Williams v Tasmania

Williams v Tasmania

Case [2014] TASCCA 2 5 May 2014

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

[2014] TASSC 2

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2

PARTIES:  WILLIAMS, Danita Lee
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  133/2014
DELIVERED ON:  5 May 2014
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:  14 April 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Wood and Pearce JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Charges of stealing and fraud as a clerk or servant – Sentence of 10 months' imprisonment with four months thereof suspended – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Full restitution of $67,800 plus interest and costs before appellant charged.

Attorney-General v Saunders [TASSC] 22, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  K L Baumeler
             Respondent:  J Hartnett, J Wade
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Butler McIntyre & Butler
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2014] TASCCA 2
Number of paragraphs: 24

Serial No 2/2014
File No 133/2014

DANITA LEE WILLIAMS v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
WOOD J
PEARCE J
5 May 2014

Order of the Court (14 April 2014)

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 2/2014
File No 133/2014

DANITA LEE WILLIAMS v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
5 May 2014

On 14 April 2014 this Court dismissed an appeal by Danita Lee Williams against her sentence of 10 months' imprisonment, of which four months were suspended on condition that she commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years. When we dismissed the appeal, we stated that our reasons for dismissing it would be published at a later date. I have read the reasons of Pearce J in draft form. My reasons for concluding that the appeal should be dismissed were precisely the same as his.
File No 133/2014

DANITA LEE WILLIAMS v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD J
5 May 2014

I have read the reasons of Pearce J. They fully accord with my reasons for joining in the order dismissing the appeal.
File No 133/2014

DANITA LEE WILLIAMS v THE STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

PEARCE J
5 May 2014

On 14 February 2014 the appellant, Danita Williams, pleaded guilty to one count of stealing and one count of fraud as a clerk or servant. Between 1 March 2009 and 25 November 2011 she stole $67,800 from her employer. On 25 February 2014 the appellant was sentenced by Porter J to imprisonment for ten months, four months of which was suspended for two years.
The appellant appealed the sentence. The sole ground of appeal was that the sentence was manifestly excessive. On 14 April 2014 this Court heard the appeal and dismissed it, stating that our reasons for dismissing it would be published at a later date. These are my reasons for concluding that the appeal should be…

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 Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2
Case: [2014] TASCCA 2
Decision Date: 5 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal against sentence brought by the appellant, Williams, who had been convicted of stealing and fraud as a clerk or servant. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, comprising Blow CJ, Wood and Pearce JJ. The appellant sought to argue that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentence of 10 months' imprisonment, with four months suspended, was demonstrably too severe, particularly in light of the fact that the appellant had made full restitution of the $67,800 stolen, plus interest and costs, prior to being charged.

The Full Court considered the principles governing appeals against sentence, including the limited grounds upon which an appellate court will interfere with a sentencing judge's discretion. While acknowledging the appellant's full restitution and the potential mitigating factors this might represent, the Court ultimately found that the sentencing judge had properly taken all relevant circumstances into account. The Court determined that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that the sentencing judge had not erred in the exercise of their discretion.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2

Most Recent Citation

Cairns v Stringer [2015] TASSC 8

Cases citing this decision · 12 of 12 shown

Lockwood v Tasmania
[2025] TASCCA 6 Para 17

…ng factor: Prehn v R [2003] TASSC 55 at [21]; R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 at 519-520; R v Schwabegger [1998] 4 VR 649 at 659-660; Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2 at [17]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Allen [2017] TASCCA 24, 27 Tas R 260 at [19]. However, a delay of three years and three months is not unus…
Lockwood v Tasmania
[2024] TASCCA 15 Para 17

…ng factor: Prehn v R [2003] TASSC 55 at [21]; R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 at 519-520; R v Schwabegger [1998] 4 VR 649 at 659-660; Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2 at [17]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Allen [2017] TASCCA 24, 27 Tas R 260 at [19]. However, a delay of three years and three months is not unus…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Kendall
[2021] TASCCA 10 Para 12

…tion. The repayment of money carries greater weight if it involves personal sacrifice: Scott v The Queen [1986] TASSC 81; Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2 at [12]. It is highly unlikely that PJ Robinson Pty Ltd would have been able to recover more than a small percentage of the amount recovered if left to enfor…
Davidson v State of Tasmania
[2019] TASCCA 9 Para 4

…ng factor: Prehn v R [2003] TASSC 55 at [21]; R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 at 519-520; R v Schwabegger [1998] 4 VR 649 at 659-660; Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2 at [17]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Allen [2017] TASCCA 24, 27 Tas R 260 at [19]. However, a delay of three years and three months is not unus…
Roberts v Redpath Haulage Pty Ltd
[2018] TASSC 33 Para 17

…Delay as a sentencing consideration was discussed in Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2. At [17] Pearce J said: "The law concerning the issue of delay was stated by this Court in Prehn v R [2003] TASSC 55 at [21] in which Crawford J (as he then was) wrote the lead judgment and referred to R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR…
Quirk v State of Tasmania
[2018] TASCCA 8 Para 1

…he appellant also noted that the learned trial judge was referred to Director of Public Prosecutions v Allen [2017] TASCCA 24 and Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2, and submitted that in both cases the defendant had misappropriated substantially greater amounts of money than the appellant and the offending had o…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Allen
[2017] TASCCA 24 Para 4

…encing was stated by this Court in Prehn v The Queen [2003] TASSC 55 and subsequently applied in W v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 24 and Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2. Unnecessary and long delay in investigating and prosecuting a case can be mitigating but it is not per se mitigating. If a prosecution is too slow i…
TAB v Moore
[2017] TASSC 65 Para 8

…he police. The applicant claimed some mitigation from delay. The issue of delay was considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2. The court applied the law as stated in Prehn v The Queen [2003] TASSC 55. Delay between commission of an offence and final disposition of a case is…
Pike v Lusted
[2017] TASSC 46 Para 5

…General deterrence is a very significant sentencing factor in cases involving thefts from employers and similar situations: Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2, per Pearce J at [21]. Having regard to the scale and duration of the applicant's offending, and to the need to deter others from such conduct, I am not sa…
Dimech v Tasmania
[2016] TASCCA 3 Para 12

…The appellant specifically relies on the sentence in Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2 where the theft over a period of four years of $68000 by an employee in a position of trust attracted a sentenced of ten months' imprisonment which was held to be within the range of appropriate sentences.…
Cairns v Stringer
[2015] TASSC 8 Para 4

…self, a mitigating factor, but it will be if it results in unfairness to the offender: Prehn v The Queen [2003] TASSC 55 at [21]; Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2 at [17]. The respondent has two children. At the time of the police search the younger one was 10 months old, and the older one was aged 3 years 8 mo…
Director of Public Prosecutions (Acting) v Ohl
[2014] TASCCA 4 Para 10

…v Law (1995) 84 A Crim R 142; Miceli v R [1998] 4 VR 588; R v Schwabegger [1998] 4 VR 649; Cockerell v R (2001) 126 A Crim R 444; Williams v Tasmania [2014] TASCCA 2 at [17].…

View all 12 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 14 of 14 shown

Brooks v Lane
[2014] TASSC 2

…[2014] TASSC 2…
Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS
[2013] TASCCA 10 Para 18

…or her discretion: see Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665 at [15], and the other cases referred to by this Court in Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS [2013] TASCCA 10. This Court must be persuaded of error of the second type referred to in House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505, that is that the sentence imposed by the…
Job v R
[2011] NSWCCA 267 Para 11

…More recently the Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales accepted in Job v R [2011] NSWCCA 267 that reparation will sound in mitigation, but the extent to which it does so depends on the degree of sacrifice involved.…
Hili v The Queen
[2010] HCA 45 Para 18

…ble or plainly unjust". In considering that question regard is to be given to all the matters that are relevant to determining the sentence: Hili v R (2010) 242 CLR 520 at 539.…
Lusted v Kenway
[2008] TASSC 47 Para 18

…ld only be the result of some undefinable error in the exercise of the judicial discretion: Bresnehan v R (1992) 1 Tas R 234 at [13]; Lusted v Kenway [2008] TASSC 47 at [38]; Visser v Smart [1998] TASSC 151. A court of criminal appeal may not substitute its own opinion for that of the sentencing judge merely becau…
W v Tasmania
[2007] TASSC 24 Para 13

…Remorse is a mitigating factor: W v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 24, Pavlic v R (1995) 5 Tas R 186, Ferguson v R [2001] TASSC 20 at [16]. The appellant's admissions and co-operation were mitigating factors. Although she had good reason to believe that discovery of her crimes was imminent she admitted her conduct to her e…
Prehn v R
[2003] TASSC 55 Para 15

…The law concerning the issue of delay was stated by this Court in Prehn v R [2003] TASSC 55 at [21] in which Crawford J (as he then was) wrote the lead judgment and referred to R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 at 519 – 520 and R v Schwabegger [1998] 4 VR 649 at 660. Prehn was subsequently applied by this Court in W v T…
Ferguson v R
[2001] TASSC 20 Para 13

…Remorse is a mitigating factor: W v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 24, Pavlic v R (1995) 5 Tas R 186, Ferguson v R [2001] TASSC 20 at [16]. The appellant's admissions and co-operation were mitigating factors. Although she had good reason to believe that discovery of her crimes was imminent she admitted her conduct to her e…
Attorney-General v Saunders
[2000] TASSC 22 Para 9

…Restitution is a relevant sentencing consideration. I would respectfully adopt the following statement of this Court in Attorney-General v Saunders [2000] TASSC 22 at [7] as representing a correct statement of principle: "As was observed in Boian (1997) 96 A Crim R 582 at 586, the making of restitution does not af…
Visser v Smart
[1998] TASSC 151 Para 18

…e error in the exercise of the judicial discretion: Bresnehan v R (1992) 1 Tas R 234 at [13]; Lusted v Kenway [2008] TASSC 47 at [38]; Visser v Smart [1998] TASSC 151. A court of criminal appeal may not substitute its own opinion for that of the sentencing judge merely because the appellate court would have exercis…
Pearce v The Queen
[1998] HCA 57 Para 15

…1] in which Crawford J (as he then was) wrote the lead judgment and referred to R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 at 519 – 520 and R v Schwabegger [1998] 4 VR 649 at 660. Prehn was subsequently applied by this Court in W v Tasmania (above). Delay between commission of an offence and final disposition of a case is…
R v Whitnall
[1993] FCA 271 Para 9

…fenders cannot bargain with the court, and, in effect, buy themselves out of sentences.' However, we agree with the view of Higgins J in R v Whitnall [1993] FCA 271; (1993) 42 FCR 512 at 515, that there is no error in principle in the proposition that while an offender should not be allowed to purchase his or her…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40 Para 18

…is Court in Director of Public Prosecutions v CSS [2013] TASCCA 10. This Court must be persuaded of error of the second type referred to in House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 505, that is that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge is "unreasonable or plainly unjust". In considering that question regard is to be g…
[1986] TASSC 81
[1986] TASSC 81 Para 10

…The mitigating impact of repayment of the money taken is increased if it involves personal sacrifice. In Scott v R [1986] TASSC 81, Nettlefold J, as a member of the Court of Criminal Appeal, when considering a sentence imposed on a solicitor for stealing commented that "a significant aspect is the fact that he mad…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.