Williams v The Queen

The appeal concerned a sentence imposed by Burns J on Derek Joseph Williams for multiple offences, including aggravated burglary, theft, driving whilst disqualified, furious/reckless/dangerous driving, and driving a motor vehicle without consent. The primary ground for appeal was that the sentence imposed by the trial judge resulted in an unjust disparity when compared to the sentences received by a co-offender. The matter was heard by Refshauge, Penfold, and Wigney JJ of the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence imposed on Mr. Williams was manifestly excessive or unjust, particularly in light of the disparity with his co-offender's sentence. This involved a re-sentencing exercise to assess the appropriate punishment for the offences committed by Mr. Williams, considering all relevant factors, including the need for consistency in sentencing where appropriate.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the original sentence did indeed cause an unjust disparity. In re-sentencing Mr. Williams, the Court applied principles of sentencing that aim to achieve proportionality and avoid unwarranted differences between co-offenders. The Court set aside the original orders, except for the Good Behaviour Orders for two minor traffic offences, and imposed a new sentence structure. This new sentence included terms of imprisonment for the more serious offences, with specific commencement and end dates, and disqualifications from holding a driver's licence. Crucially, the overall sentence was suspended from 16 May 2016, subject to Mr. Williams entering into a good behaviour undertaking for twelve months. This undertaking included supervision by the Director-General or their delegate, with conditions relating to residence, and mandatory participation in vocational courses and treatment for drug and alcohol addiction and mental impairment as deemed appropriate by the supervisor.