The Queen v Williams

The Crown appealed against the sentences of two murderers, Mr Williams and Mr Olson, under s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002. That section requires a 17 year minimum term of imprisonment in certain murders unless it is “manifestly unjust” to do so. The Crown argued that the sentences of 15 years imposed on each offender were manifestly unjust. The Court held that the appeal against Mr Williams’ sentence should be allowed and a 17 year minimum term substituted. The appeal against Mr Olson’s sentence was dismissed. The Court held that the Crown had failed to establish that a 17 year minimum term was justified in Mr Olson’s case. The Court held that “manifestly unjust” means that the Court must be satisfied that the case falls outside the scope of the legislative policy that murders with specified features are sufficiently serious to justify at least a 17 year minimum term. That conclusion can be reached only if the circumstances of the offence and the offender are such that the case does not fall within the band of culpability of a qualifying murder. In that sense they will be exceptional but such cases need not be rare. As well, the conclusion may be reached only on the basis of clearly demonstrable factors that withstand objective scrutiny. Judges must guard against allowing discounts based on favourable subjective views of the case. The sentencing discretion of Judges is limited in that respect. The Court held that a guilty plea was properly taken into account in considering whether a 17 year minimum term would be manifestly unjust. The discount required for a guilty plea may, however, often be less than in an ordinary case where the statute establishes no presumption that the sentence will be at a particular level. The reason is that departures from the 17 year minimum are only to occur in cases of clear injustice.