Williams v The Queen - [2016] NSWCCA 68

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v R [2016] NSWCCA 68
Hearing dates: 22 March 2016
Date of orders: 04 May 2016
Decision date: 04 May 2016
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Harrison J at [2];
Davies J at [61]
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – supply commercial quantity of prohibited drug and other offences – aggregate sentence – whether judge erred in assessment of objective seriousness – principle of totality – whether judge erred in failing to take account of the principle – parity – whether justifiable sense of grievance – whether judge placed undue weight on protection of community and offences alleged to have been committed in custody – whether sentence manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Cahyadi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 188 A Crim R 41
Delaney v R; R v Delaney [2013] NSWCCA 150
House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 54 CLR 499
JM v Regina [2014] NSWCCA 297
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
R v Achurch [2011] NSWCCA 186; (2011) 216 A Crim R 152
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Williams (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Miller (Applicant)
P Ingram SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
HNT Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/293870
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

7 November 2014

Before:

Bennett SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/293870

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Harrison J.
HARRISON J: Michael Williams seeks leave to appeal against the severity of an aggregate sentence imposed by Bennett DCJ on 7 November 2014. The offences with which Mr Williams was charged were as follows:

Count 1: Larceny of alcohol valued at $241,050 on 25 April 2012 contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 years imprisonment.

Count 2: Supply not less than the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, being 432.99g between 26 July 2012 and 7 September 2012 contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years imprisonment and/or $385,000. This offence carries a standard non-parole period of ten years.

Form 1: Destroy property by means of fire, being a motor vehicle in company on 11 July 2012 contrary to s 195(1A)(b) of the Crimes Act, This offence carries a maximum penalty of 11 years imprisonment. It was to be taken into account upon sentence for Count 2.

Count 3: Supply not less than the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, being 453g on or about 19 September 2012 contrary to s 25(2) of the Act.

Mr Williams pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 2 and to the offence on the Form 1. He was found guilty and convicted by his Honour on…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Williams v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 68
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 68
Decision Date: 04 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williams was convicted of a number of offences, including the supply of a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, and sentenced to a total of 12 years imprisonment. The appeal concerned the sentence imposed, specifically the aggregate sentence and the way in which the trial judge had applied the principles of sentencing. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately considered the principles of sentencing.

The legal issues considered by the court included whether the trial judge had erred in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences, whether the trial judge had erred in failing to take account of the principle of totality, and whether the trial judge had erred in failing to give appropriate weight to the principle of parity. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance, and whether the trial judge had placed undue weight on the need to protect the community and on the offences alleged to have been committed in custody.

In determining these issues, the court examined the sentencing remarks of the trial judge and the circumstances of the case. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the principles of sentencing, including the objective seriousness of the offences, the principle of totality, and the principle of parity. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the need to protect the community with the need to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the offending. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders