Legal Research
Cases
Williams v The Queen

Williams v The Queen

Case [2013] NSWCCA 168 18 July 2013

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v R [2013] NSWCCA 168
Hearing dates: 3 July 2013
Decision date: 18 July 2013
Before: Ward JA; Fullerton J; Schmidt J
Decision:
The application for extension of time to appeal is refused.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against severity of sentence - attempted contract killing - merits of application considered - parity - application refused
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Bowtell v R [2004] NSWCCA 17
Edwards v R [2009] NSWCCA 199
El Hassan v R [2003] NSWCCA 252
Flack v R [2011] NSWCCA 167
Green v R; Quinn v R [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462; 214 A Crim R 152
Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCCA 60; (2010) 77 NSWLR 540
Kauwenberghs v R [2008] NSWCCA 98; (2008) 186 A Crim R 197
Louizos v R [2009] NSWCCA 71; (2009) 194 A Crim R 223
Lowe v R [2013] NSWCCA 141
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Ng v R [2011] NSWCCA 227; 214 A Crim R 191
Osman v R [2008] NSWCCA 157
Phanith v R [2009] NSWCCA 274
R v Christie [2000] NSWCCA 354
R v Tan (New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 11 March 2004, Unreported)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Chad David Williams (Applicant)
Crown (Regina)
Representation: Counsel: H Dhanji SC (Applicant)
M Cinque (Crown)
Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2007/10971
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2008-03-06 00:00:00

Before:

O'Connor QC DCJ

File Number(s):

2007/10971

Judgment

THE COURT: Chad David Williams makes application for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed upon him by O'Connor DCJ on 6 March 2008 for his part in an attempted contract killing, which attracted a charge under s 27 of the Crimes Act 1900 of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to murder, to which he pleaded guilty.

On sentencing he asked that a further offence of malicious damage by fire, contrary to s 195(1)(b) of the Crimes Act be taken into account on a Form 1. That offence involved the destruction of a vehicle which was owned by the victim of the offence on indictment. The vehicle was valued at $42,000.

The maximum penalty for the s 27 offence was 25 years imprisonment and there was also a standard non-parole period of 10 years imposed by s 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The maximum penalty for the s 195 offence was 10 years.

The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10…

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 [2013] NSWCCA 168
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 168
Decision Date: 18 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williams v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted of attempted contract killing. The appellant sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's application for an extension of time should be granted, considering the exceptional circumstances that delayed the application.

The court considered the principles of parity and the importance of finality in criminal sentencing. The appellant argued that exceptional circumstances justified an extension of time, citing delays in the legal process and the impact on his ability to prepare a timely application. The court acknowledged the appellant's arguments but emphasised the need for finality in sentencing matters to ensure the integrity of the criminal justice system. The court found that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time.

After evaluating the evidence and arguments presented, the High Court concluded that the application for an extension of time should be refused. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would justify departing from the usual time limits for applying for leave to appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and upheld the original sentence imposed on the appellant. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in the appeal process, particularly in matters involving the severity of criminal sentences.

Orders