Williams v The Queen; R v Williams - [2019] NSWCCA 53

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v R; R v Williams [2019] NSWCCA 53
Hearing dates: 2 November 2018
Date of orders: 15 March 2019
Decision date: 15 March 2019
Before: Gleeson JA at [1]
Schmidt J at [152]
Button J at [219]
Decision:
(1)   Grant the appellant leave to appeal his convictions.

(2)   Uphold the appeal.

(3)   Quash the convictions.

(4)   Dismiss the Crown’s appeal against sentence.
(5) Pursuant to Rule 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW), direct a judgment and verdict of acquittal for the appellant on counts 2 and 3.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – evidence – identi fication and recognition evidence – whether convictions unreasonable or not supported by evidence – whether it was open to the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of discharging a firearm in a public place and causing grievous bodily harm to the victim
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – where appeal does not involve a question of law alone – where appellant failed to seek leave to appeal – grant of leave not a formality
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, ss 33A(1)(a), 93G(1)(b)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 116
Cases Cited: Atai v R [2014] NSWCCA 210
Cottrell v R [2012] NSWCCA 117
Davies v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170; [1937] HCA 27
Kuehne v R; Humphries M v R; Humphries A v R [2010] NSWCCA 270
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
Mills v Western Australia (2008) 189 A Crim 411; [2008] WASCA 219
Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454; [1987] HCA 50
Palmer v R [2018] NSWCCA 205
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
Rasic v R [2009] NSWCCA 202
R v Trudgett (2007) 70 NSWLR 696; [2008] NSWCCA 62
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 at 228
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kyle Williams (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Lange (Appellant)
F Veltro (Respondent)
Solicitors:
King and York Lawyers (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/200787
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

27 July 2018

Before:

Pickering SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/200787

Judgment

GLEESON JA: On 12 February 2018, the appellant Mr Kyle Williams pleaded not guilty in the District Court to an indictment that contained three counts as follows:

1. On 2 July 2016, at San Remo in the State of New South Wales, fired a firearm in or near a public place, namely Emu Drive, San Remo, contrary to s 93G(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);
2. On 2 July 2016, at Buff Point in 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Williams v The Queen; R v Williams and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NSWCCA 53
Decision Date: 15 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Williams v The Queen; R v Williams, the appellant, Williams, was convicted of discharging a firearm in a public place and causing grievous bodily harm to the victim. The matter was brought before the court on appeal, where the primary issue was whether the convictions were unreasonable or not supported by evidence, particularly in relation to the identification and recognition evidence presented during the trial. The court also considered whether it was open to the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offences as charged.

The court examined the evidence presented at trial, including the identification and recognition evidence, to determine whether it was reliable and sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court noted that the identification evidence was crucial in establishing the appellant's involvement in the offence, and it was therefore important to assess the reliability of the evidence presented. The court further considered the appellant's argument that the convictions were unreasonable or not supported by evidence, and whether there were any errors in the trial that could have affected the outcome.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the convictions were open to the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offences as charged. The court held that the identification and recognition evidence was reliable and sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and that there were no errors in the trial that could have affected the outcome. The court also noted that the appellant's appeal did not involve a question of law alone, and that the grant of leave to appeal was not a formality. As such, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's convictions.

The court ordered that the appellant's convictions and sentences be upheld, and that the appeal be dismissed. The court did not grant leave to appeal, and the appellant's convictions and sentences remained in place. The court's decision in this case serves as an important reminder of the importance of reliable identification and recognition evidence in criminal trials, and the need for careful assessment of such evidence to ensure that convictions are based on sound and reliable evidence.

Orders