Williams v The Queen - [2014] NSWCCA 57

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v R [2014] NSWCCA 57
Hearing dates: 10 February 2014
Decision date: 15 April 2014
Before: Ward JA [at 1]
Johnson J [at 2]
RS Hulme AJ [at 3]
Decision:
Grant leave to appeal against sentence
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - supply commercial quantity of prohibited drug - appeal against sentence - history of drug and alcohol abuse - history of mental illness - remorse - good prospects of rehabilitation - whether trial judge erred in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending - whether trial judge erred in attributing less significance to medical evidence.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Cicciarello v R [2009] NSWCCA 272
Tadrosse v R [2005] NSWCCA 145
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Anthony Christopher Williams (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation: Counsel:
M Thangaraj SC / KH Averre (Applicant)
S Dowling SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
James A Moustacas & Co (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2010/227165
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2012-09-11 00:00:00

Before:

Wells SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2010/227165

Judgment

WARD JA: I agree with RS Hulme AJ

JOHNSON J: I agree with RS Hulme AJ

RS HULME AJ: On 11 September 2012 this Applicant for leave to appeal was sentenced by Wells SC DCJ to imprisonment for 6 years, including a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months, in respect of an offence of supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine.

The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment and is one for which a standard non-parole period of 10 years' imprisonment has been prescribed. The Applicant pleaded guilty and was awarded a discount of 40%, being 25% for his plea and the balance for what her Honour described as extensive assistance resulting in some danger to himself.

The offence was constituted by the Applicant selling to an undercover police officer at the Rose Bay Hotel on 6 occasions between 18 March 2010 and 1 July 2010 a total of some 392.7 gm of cocaine worth $107,000. Following the Applicant's arrest, police executed a search warrant at his premises, finding there or in his car, inter alia:-

a further 144.5 gm of cocaine
594.9 gm of cannabis
small quantities of other drugs being methylamphetamine, ketamine and cannabis resin
two sets of scales and numerous small plastic resealable bags
$23,000

These items were the subject of charges placed on a Form 1.

The Applicant gave evidence which appears to have been accepted by the Crown and her Honour that he had been selling the cocaine as a favour for a friend, his reward being allowed for his personal use a small proportion of the cocaine supplied to him. Her Honour observed that the Applicant was more than a mere street runner, was trusted to handle substantial quantities of drugs and cash, and his offending occurred over a substantial period.

The Applicant was born in October 1954. He had had a stable upbringing,…

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 [2014] NSWCCA 57
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 57
Decision Date: 15 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williams v The Queen involved the appellant, Williams, who was convicted of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. Williams appealed against his sentence, arguing that the trial judge had erred in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending and in attributing less significance to medical evidence regarding his history of drug and alcohol abuse and mental illness. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues in this case centred on the appropriate weight to be given to the appellant's personal circumstances and medical history when determining the severity of the sentence. The appellant contended that the trial judge should have taken into account his history of drug and alcohol abuse and mental illness, as well as his remorse and good prospects of rehabilitation, in assessing the objective seriousness of the offending. The central question before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending and in attributing less significance to the medical evidence.

The High Court found that the trial judge had not erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offending or in attributing less significance to the medical evidence. The court held that the trial judge had properly considered the appellant's personal circumstances and medical history, but had ultimately determined that these factors did not warrant a reduction in the severity of the sentence. The court emphasised that the primary consideration in sentencing for drug offences was the protection of the community and the deterrence of similar offending, and that the trial judge had appropriately balanced these considerations with the appellant's personal circumstances in determining the appropriate sentence.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld. The court found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion reasonably and in accordance with the relevant principles of sentencing for drug offences.

Orders