Williams v The Queen

Case [2001] FCA 1464

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Williams v The Queen [2001] FCA 1464

DARREN FRANK WILLIAMS v THE QUEEN

A5 of 2001

WILCOX, MILES and WHITLAM JJ
18 MAY 2001
CANBERRA


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

 A5 of 2001

BETWEEN:

DARREN FRANK WILLIAMS
APPLICANT

AND:

THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX, MILES and WHITLAM JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

18 MAY 2001

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The sentences imposed on the appellant by the Supreme Court on 14 February 2001 be set aside.

2.On the first count the appellant is to be sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment suspended forthwith upon the condition that the appellant:

(a)enter into a recognisance (self) in the sum of $1000 to be of good behaviour for three years;

and the further conditions that the appellant:
(b)       accept psychiatric treatment and taking prescribed medication;

(b)accept the supervision of the Director of Corrective Services during such period as the Director approves within the three years of the recognisance and accept such alcohol treatment and counselling as may be directed;

(c)not approach within a 2 kilometre radius of 12 Harkness Street, Monash except for some important personal purpose and after obtaining permission from the Director of Adult Corrective Services or one of his officers.

3.On the third count, the appellant serve 208 hours of community service, and for that purpose report to the Director of Community Services Office in the Magistrates Court building in Canberra within seven days.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

 A5 of 2001

BETWEEN:

DARREN FRANK WILLIAMS
APPLICANT

AND:

THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX, MILES and WHITLAM JJ

DATE:

18 MAY 2001

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J:

  1. The Court has considered what course it should take in relation to this matter.  There are two observations we wish to make.  One is that we regard the offences to which the appellant is pleading guilty as serious offences.  Notwithstanding the behaviour of other people involved in the incident, the action taken by the appellant must be regarded as extremely inappropriate.  The second observation that we wish to make is that we do not disagree with the view taken by Madgwick J in regard to sentence, on the basis of the material then before him.  In fact we go so far as to indicate our express agreement with that view. 

  2. However, there are some unusual circumstances surrounding the sentence, the effect of the sentence and, in particular, its effect on other people other than the appellant.  For that reason we have decided to substitute different orders, which will have the effect of substituting community service obligations for the periodic detention that his Honour ordered.  Miles J has worked out the form of the order and will indicate the orders the Court will make. 

MILES J:  

  1. I agree with what Wilcox J has said in that the appeal should for the reasons given be allowed.  I propose the following orders.  The Court would set aside the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court on 14 February 2001 and in their place substitute the following:

    (1)On the first count the appellant is to be sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment suspended forthwith upon entering into a recognisance (self) in the sum of $1000 to be of good behaviour for three years and further conditioned upon accepting treatment, that is, psychiatric treatment and taking prescribed medication. 

    (2)       Further conditioned:

    on accepting the supervision of the Director of Corrective Services during such period as the Director approves within the three years of the recognisance and accept such alcohol treatment and counselling as may be directed.

    (3)Further:

    not to approach within a 2 kilometre radius of 12 Harkness Street, Monash except for some important personal purpose and after obtaining permission from the Director of Adult Corrective Services or one of his officers.

    4.On the third count I would order that the appellant serve 208 hours of community service and for that purpose report to the Director of Community Services Office in the Magistrates Court building in Canberra within seven days.

WHITLAM J:  

  1. I agree with the orders proposed, for the reasons given by both of my colleagues.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Wilcox, Miles and Whitlam.

Associate:

Dated:             22 October 2001

Counsel for the Appellant: V Tjakamarra-Forrest
Solicitor for the Appellant: Tjakamarra Forrest Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent: A Robertson
Solicitor for the Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of Hearing: 18 May 2001
Details
AGLC
Williams v The Queen [2001] FCA 1464
Case
[2001] FCA 1464
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against sentence was brought by the appellant, Williams, against the decision of the Supreme Court. The nature of the dispute revolves around the severity of the sentence imposed on the appellant, who had been found guilty on multiple counts. The court in question was the Supreme Court, which had initially sentenced the appellant on 14 February 2001. The appellant sought to have this sentence reviewed, arguing that it was excessively harsh and not proportionate to the crimes committed.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the original sentence was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Specifically, the court had to consider the principles of sentencing, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and whether there were any mitigating factors that warranted a lesser penalty. The appellant argued that the sentence was unduly severe, and that alternative forms of punishment could be more effective in addressing the underlying issues of the case.

The court, in delivering its decision, acknowledged that the sentence imposed was indeed severe. However, it noted that the offences were serious and warranted a substantial penalty. In reviewing the sentence, the court took into account the appellant's health issues, particularly his mental health and alcohol dependency. Consequently, the court decided to set aside the original sentence and impose a more tailored penalty. This included a suspended sentence with specific conditions, such as psychiatric treatment, supervision, and restrictions on the appellant's movements. The court's reasoning was based on a balance between the need for punishment and the opportunity for rehabilitation. The final orders reflect this balanced approach, providing the appellant with a chance to address his issues while also ensuring public safety.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The sentences imposed on the appellant by the Supreme Court on 14 February 2001 be set aside.

2. On the first count the appellant is to be sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment suspended forthwith upon the condition that the appellant:

(a) enter into a recognisance (self) in the sum of $1000 to be of good behaviour for three years;

and the further conditions that the appellant:

(b) accept psychiatric treatment and taking prescribed medication;

(b) accept the supervision of the Director of Corrective Services during such period as the Director approves within the three years of the recognisance and accept such alcohol treatment and counselling as may be directed;

(c) not approach within a 2 kilometre radius of 12 Harkness Street, Monash except for some important personal purpose and after obtaining permission from the Director of Adult Corrective Services or one of his officers.

3.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.