DPP v Williams (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Gucciardo, 6 April 2018)
---
CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Sentence — Intentionally causing injury — Applicant suffering from paranoid schizophrenia — Relapse of psychotic illness the result of stress, failure to take medication and drug use — Verdins principles — When community correction order (‘CCO’) available in addition to term of imprisonment — Whether CCO satisfies punitive and rehabilitative sentencing requirements — Observations on absence of victim impact statement — Appeal allowed — R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Boulton v The Queen (2014) 46 VR 308 considered — Sentencing Act 1991 s 44(1).
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Applicant
Mr N Papas QC with Ms R Avis
Victorian Aboriginal Legal Services
For the Respondent
Mr B Sonnet
Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
PRIEST JA HARGRAVE JA:
Introduction
Just after 11.00 am on Friday, 14 April 2017, the applicant stabbed his brother-in-law, Raymond Williams, in the abdomen with a large knife.
A little over ten months later, on 21 February 2018, the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to intentionally causing injury to his brother-in-law.[1]
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 18. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
Following a plea, on 6 April 2018 the judge sentenced the applicant to be imprisoned for three years and six months, and imposed a non-parole period of two years.[2]
[2]The applicant had also pleaded guilty to a related summary charge of exceeding the prescribed blood concentration of an illicit drug within three hours after having driven a motor vehicle. For that offence he was fined $300 without conviction, and a driver’s licence cancellation of three months was imposed.
Ultimately, the applicant sought leave to appeal against that sentence on a single ground, formulated as follows:[3]
4. The sentencing hearing miscarried as a result of the learned sentencing judge misapplying the provisions s 44(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991.
[3]Initially, the notice contained three grounds of appeal. During the hearing in this Court, however, the applicant’s sought — and was granted — leave to abandon those grounds, and sought — and was granted — leave to amend the notice by adding a further ground, ground 4. The abandoned grounds were in the following terms:
1. The sentencing discretion miscarried as a consequence of the learned sentencing judge having found — despite the applicant’s unchallenged history of an organic paranoid schizophrenic illness — that:
(a)the realistic cause (and only cause) of the applicant’s offending was his consumption of methamphetamine and failure to adhere to his medication regime; and
(b)the applicant’s moral culpability was not relevantly reduced, nor were general and specific deterrence sensibly moderated.
2. The sentencing discretion…
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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Williams v The Queen [2018] VSCA 171
Case
[2018] VSCA 171
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Williams, was convicted of intentionally causing injury and appealed the sentence imposed. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Williams argued that the original sentence was excessive and should be reduced, particularly considering his mental health condition and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The appeal hinged on the appropriate application of sentencing principles, specifically whether a community correction order could be utilised alongside imprisonment to adequately address both the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of sentencing.
The court examined the principles set out in Verdins and Boulton, assessing the availability and suitability of a community correction order in this case. It was critical to determine whether such an order could satisfy the dual objectives of punishment and rehabilitation given Williams's mental health issues and the specific circumstances of the offence. The court considered the absence of a victim impact statement and its potential implications for the sentencing process. Ultimately, the court concluded that the original sentence did not sufficiently take into account the mitigating factors and that a reduction was warranted.
In light of the Verdins principles and the Sentencing Act, the court found that a community correction order could indeed be employed in conjunction with a term of imprisonment. This approach would allow for the punitive and rehabilitative needs to be met more appropriately. The court accepted that Williams's relapse was significantly influenced by stress, non-compliance with medication, and drug use. These factors warranted a more balanced and rehabilitative approach to sentencing. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to include a community correction order in place of part of the original imprisonment term.