SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Williams v The Queen |
Citation: | [2018] ACTCA 4 |
Hearing Date: | 22 February 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 27 February 2018 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Burns and Elkaim JJ |
Decision: | See [63] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal against sentence – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive |
Legislation Cited: | Bail Act 1992 (ACT) s 49 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 27, 29, 32 and 361 Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1999 (ACT) s 18 |
Cases Cited: | Barrett v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 38 |
Parties: | Derek Joseph Williams (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Self-represented (Appellant) Mr J White SC (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Self-represented (Appellant) Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 8 of 2017 |
Decision under appeal: | Court: ACT Supreme Court Before: Mossop J Date of Decision: 23 February 2017 Case Title: R v Williams Citation: [2017] ACTSC 298 |
THE COURT:
This appeal arises from a sentencing hearing before Mossop J on 23 February 2017. The appellant is the offender. His Notice of Appeal was filed on 7 March 2017.
The appeal was listed for hearing on 13 February 2018. On that date, the appellant made an oral application for an adjournment to obtain legal advice. The matter was adjourned to 22 February 2018 to enable this to take place.
The appellant’s attempts to obtain representation were unsuccessful. On 22 February 2018, the appellant appeared unrepresented before the Court. He handed up some notes prepared on his behalf, which the Court took into account. The notes raised questions concerning concurrency and accumulation, the lack of access to a law library and the excessive length of the sentence imposed for the offence of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm.
The Notice of Appeal was prepared by the appellant. It is plain that the appellant believes that the overall sentence he received was too long and severe. His single ground of appeal may be summarised as an assertion that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
On 7 December 2016, the appellant pleaded guilty to the following eight offences in the Magistrates Court:
(a)Aggravated dangerous driving (CC 2016/11783), contrary to s 7A(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT);
(b)Burglary (CC 2016/12673), contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT);
(c)Damage property (CC 2016/11880), contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT);
(d)Damage property (CC 2016/11881), contrary to s 403 of…
Continue reading Williams v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Williams v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 4
- Case
- [2018] ACTCA 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive. This required the appellate court to consider the principles of sentencing and to determine if the sentencing judge had erred in law or principle in arriving at the sentence.
The Court of Criminal Appeal would have undertaken a review of the sentencing exercise, considering the relevant sentencing factors, including the nature and gravity of the offence, the appellant's culpability, any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and the sentencing objectives. The court would have applied established legal principles governing appeals against sentence, focusing on whether the sentence fell outside the bounds of what was reasonably open to the sentencing judge. The final orders or outcome of the appeal are indicated to be found at paragraph [63] of the full judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [63]
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.