Legal Research
Cases
Williamson v R

Williamson v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 250 16 September 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Williamson v R [2015] NSWCCA 250
Hearing dates: 19 August 2015
Decision date: 16 September 2015
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
R A Hulme J at [2];
Wilson J at [73]
Decision:
1. Extension of time to file notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence until 7 May 2015 granted.
2. Leave to appeal granted.
3. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – offences of fraud and dishonesty and recruit a person to carry out a criminal activity – whether sentencing judge failed to apply discount for guilty plea – where discount referred to early in remarks and not repeated – mathematical precision not necessary when applying discount – no error – whether judge erred in application of general deterrence given applicant’ s mental condition – careful consideration given to mental condition – no error – whether error in failing to quantify discount for assistance to authorities – not mandatory under s 23 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act that court apply discount on account of assistance – no error – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 176A, 192H, 351A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 23, 53A
Cases Cited: Akkawi v R; Akkawi v R [2012] NSWCCA 11
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
R v Cahill [2015] NSWCCA 53
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383
R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48
Rios v R [2012] NSWCCA 8
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Alexander Williamson (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr H Dhanji SC (Applicant)
Mr E Balodis (Crown)
Solicitors:
Uther Webster & Evans
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2012/307350
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

28 March 2014

Before:

Frearson SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/307350

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: I agree with R A Hulme J.
R A HULME J: The applicant, Michael Alexander Williamson, seeks leave to appeal in respect of a sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Frearson SC in the District Court at Sydney on 28 March 2014.
An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is required but it was not opposed by the Crown and should be granted.
For four offences to which the applicant had pleaded guilty, and taking into account his guilt in respect of a further four offences, the learned judge imposed an aggregate sentence of 7 years 6 months, with a non-parole period of 5 years, which was backdated to the day the applicant went into custody (3 March 2014).
All of the offences were contrary to provisions of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and occurred whilst the applicant was the General Secretary of the Health Services Union in New South Wales (“the Health Services Union” or…

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 Williamson v R

Details

AGLC: Williamson v R [2015] NSWCCA 250
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 250
Decision Date: 16 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williamson v R involved the appellant appealing against the sentence handed down by the court for various offences, including fraud, dishonesty, and recruiting a person to carry out a criminal activity. The appeal was heard by the court which examined whether the sentencing judge had failed to apply an appropriate discount for the appellant’s guilty plea, whether the judge erred in applying general deterrence given the appellant’s mental condition, and if there was an error in failing to quantify a discount for the appellant’s assistance to the authorities. The court’s decision was to dismiss the appeal.
The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the sentencing judge failed to apply a discount for the appellant’s guilty plea, whether the judge erred in applying general deterrence given the appellant’s mental condition, and if there was an error in failing to quantify a discount for the appellant’s assistance to the authorities. The court considered the appellant’s submissions and found that the sentencing judge had indeed referred to the discount for the guilty plea early in their remarks but did not repeat it. However, the court held that mathematical precision was not necessary when applying the discount, and therefore, no error had occurred. Additionally, the court found that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the appellant’s mental condition and found no error in their application of general deterrence.
The court’s reasoning was that the sentencing judge had referred to the discount for the guilty plea early in their remarks but did not repeat it. The court held that mathematical precision was not necessary when applying the discount, and therefore, no error had occurred. The court also found that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the appellant’s mental condition and found no error in their application of general deterrence. Furthermore, the court held that it was not mandatory under s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act that a court apply a discount on account of assistance, and therefore, no error had occurred. The court found that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it.
The court’s final order was to dismiss the appeal. The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in applying a discount for the appellant’s guilty plea, in applying general deterrence given the appellant’s mental condition, or in failing to quantify a discount for the appellant’s assistance to the authorities. The court held that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it.

Orders