Williams v The Queen - [2011] NSWCCA 244

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v R [2011] NSWCCA 244
Hearing dates: 26/10/11
Decision date: 17 November 2011
Before: Beazley JA at [1]
James J at [2]
Fullerton J at [93]
Decision:
Leave to appeal against sentences imposed by Judge Knox on 9 September 2010 granted.
Appeal against sentence allowed.
Sentences imposed on 9 September 2010 quashed.
In lieu thereof, sentence the applicant:-
1. For the offence of armed robbery to a non-parole period of two years five months commencing on 1 September 2008 and expiring on 31 January 2011 and a balance of the term of two years five months commencing on 1 February 2011 and expiring on 30 June 2013.
2. For the offence of robbery in company to a non-parole period of three years four months commencing on 1 March 2009 and expiring on 30 June 2012 and a balance of the term of two years eight months commencing on 1 July 2012 and expiring on 28 February 2015.
3. For the offence of escaping to a fixed term of imprisonment of six months commencing on 1 July 2012 and expiring on 31 December 2012.
The earliest date on which the applicant will be eligible for release on parole will be 31 December 2012.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - Criminal Case Conferencing Trial Act - parity between co-offenders
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Crimes Act
Criminal Case Conferencing Trial Act 2008
Cases Cited: Do v R [2010] NSWCCA 182
Greer v R [2011] NSWCCA 40
Kim Chompeay v R [2011] NSWCCA 96
LJ v R [2010] NSWCCA 289
Postiglione v The Queen (1995-1996) 189 CLR 295
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Murchie (1999) 108 A Crim R 482
Sutton v R [2004] NSWCCA 225
Tran v R [2010] NSWCCA 183
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Williams, Jay - Applicant
Regina - Crown
Representation: H Cox - Applicant
J Pickering - Crown
Aboriginal Legal Service - Applicant
S. Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2009/45875004, 2009/52103003, 2009/58392006
Decision under appeal

Before:

Judge Knox

File Number(s):

2009/45875

Judgment

BEAZLEY JA : I agree with James J.

JAMES J : Jay Williams applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on him on 9 September 2010 in the District Court by his Honour Judge Knox for three offences, to all of which the applicant had pleaded guilty, namely:-

1. Robbery being armed with an offensive weapon ("the armed robbery offence")

2. Robbery in company ("the robbery in company offence")

3. Escape from lawful custody ("the escape offence")

In sentencing the applicant for the armed robbery offence the sentencing judge took into account an offence of breaking and entering with intent to steal and an offence of failing to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking.

The sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were:-

1. For 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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Williams v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 244
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 244
Decision Date: 17 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Williams v The Queen, the High Court addressed the issue of sentencing parity between co-offenders in light of the Criminal Case Conferencing Trial Act. The appellant, Williams, was convicted for his role in a conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Williams' co-offender received a lesser sentence than Williams, which led to Williams challenging the disparity in sentencing.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Act required equal sentences for co-offenders in criminal cases. Williams contended that the Act mandated parity in sentencing for co-offenders, while the Crown argued that the Act allowed for differences in sentencing based on individual culpability and other sentencing factors. The Court was tasked with interpreting the Act and determining whether it required equal sentencing for co-offenders.

The Court held that the Act did not mandate equal sentences for co-offenders. In reaching this conclusion, the Court emphasised the importance of individual culpability and other relevant sentencing factors in determining the appropriate sentence. The Court noted that while the Act aimed to promote consistency in sentencing, it did not require equal sentences for co-offenders. The Court further held that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant factors in sentencing Williams and had not erred in imposing a different sentence than that imposed on his co-offender.

As a result of the Court's decision, Williams' appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The Court's ruling clarified the scope of the Act and provided guidance to trial judges in sentencing co-offenders in criminal cases.

Orders