Legal Research
Cases
Williamson v The Queen

Williamson v The Queen

Case [2019] VSCA 138 20 June 2019

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0092

ADAM WILLIAMSON	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WHELAN, KYROU and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	14 June 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 June 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 138
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2018] VSC 172 (Jane Dixon J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Appellant sentenced to 25 years for charge of murder under s 3A of Crimes Act 1958, 8 years for charge of aggravated burglary and 2 years, 6 months for charge of theft – Total effective sentence of 27 years with non-parole period of 23 years – Co-offender who inflicted fatal stab wounds on victim sentenced to 22 years for charge of murder at common law, 8 years for charge of aggravated burglary and 2 years, 6 months for charge of theft – Co-offender’s total effective sentence 24 years with non-parole period of 20 years – Co-offender pleaded guilty, cooperated with authorities and gave evidence against appellant – Appellant then pleaded guilty – Whether parity principle infringed – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr M E Dempsey with Mr J Barreiro	Theo Magazis and Associates
For the Respondent	Mr J B B Lewis	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WHELAN JA:

I have read in draft the judgment of Kyrou JA. He has set out the respective sentences imposed upon the appellant, Williamson, and upon the co-offender, Cooper; the circumstances of the offending; the personal circumstances of Williamson and Cooper; the judge’s sentencing remarks; and the submissions made on this appeal. Unfortunately, I find that I cannot agree with the conclusion which he has reached in relation to the respective murder sentences. In my opinion the appellant has not established that it was not reasonably open to the sentencing judge to differentiate between Williamson and Cooper in the way in which she did.

As Kyrou JA has explained, there are two principal circumstances which suggest that the sentence for murder imposed upon Williamson (25 years’ imprisonment) should not have been greater than the sentence imposed upon Cooper (22 years’ imprisonment). These two circumstances are the fact that Cooper stabbed the victim with murderous intent, and the fact that Cooper had a prior conviction for aggravated burglary where he was carrying a knife. In addition, the respective psychological material revealed Cooper to be a higher risk of violent offending, with a consequent greater need for specific deterrence.[1]
[1]Kyrou JA has set out all the competing considerations fully and I will not repeat them.

There are, however, other factors which have led me to conclude that the differential in the sentences imposed was reasonably open to the sentencing judge.

First and foremost, Cooper cooperated with the authorities. His cooperation was significant both in relation to his own role and in relation to Williamson’s role.[2]
[2]DPP v Williamson [2018] VSC 172 [32], [66]–[67] (‘Reasons’); DPP v Cooper [2017] VSC 218 [74]–[75] (‘Cooper Reasons’); DPP…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Williamson v The Queen [2019] VSCA 138
Case: [2019] VSCA 138
Decision Date: 20 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Williamson, appealed against his sentence, contending that it contravened the parity principle due to the lower sentence received by his co-offender. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal against the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Williamson was sentenced to 25 years for murder, 8 years for aggravated burglary, and 2 years, 6 months for theft, resulting in an effective total sentence of 27 years with a non-parole period of 23 years. His co-offender, who inflicted the fatal stab wounds, was sentenced to 22 years for murder at common law, 8 years for aggravated burglary, and 2 years, 6 months for theft, resulting in a total effective sentence of 24 years with a non-parole period of 20 years. The co-offender pleaded guilty, cooperated with authorities, and gave evidence against Williamson, who subsequently also pleaded guilty.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's sentence contravened the parity principle due to the lower sentence received by his co-offender. The court considered whether the disparity in sentences breached the principle of parity, which dictates that similar offenders should receive similar sentences unless there are justifiable reasons for a difference. The court also examined the relevance of the co-offender's cooperation and whether it could justify a lesser sentence for him.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the disparity in sentences did not contravene the parity principle. The court reasoned that the sentencing judge had properly considered the appellant's culpability and the co-offender's cooperation with authorities. The judge had imposed a higher sentence on the appellant due to his greater role in the crime and had provided detailed reasons for the disparity. The court found no error in the sentencing process and affirmed the original sentence.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders