NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v R [2022] NSWCCA 15 Hearing dates: 22 October 2021 Date of orders: 9 February 2022 Decision date: 09 February 2022 Before: Johnson J at [1]; Rothman J at [2]; Hamill J at [199] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal granted; (2) Appeal allowed; (3) The sentence imposed on the Applicant, Tyler Williams, by the District Court on 4 October 2019, be quashed and in lieu thereof the Applicant, Tyler Williams, be sentenced to a non-parole period of 3 years, commencing 28 September 2019 and concluding on 27 September 2022, with the remainder of term of 2 years, concluding 27 September 2024. The Applicant is first eligible for release on parole on 27 September 2022. Catchwords: CRIME – appeal – objective seriousness – whether cause of injury by applicant open on the evidence – natural justice – effect of mental condition and deprivation and environment of abuse during youth – normalisation of violence – appeal granted on so some grounds – resentencing Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(2)(g) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 95 Cases Cited: Benitez v R (2006) 160 A Crim R 166; [2006] NSWCCA 21 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Kennedy v R [2010] NSWCCA 260 Knight v R [2010] NSWCCA 51 McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108; [1995] HCA 37 Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316; [1998] HCA 75 R v Duong, Lu, Do and Tran (1992) 61 A Crim R 140 R v Harris [2011] NSWCCA 105 R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 R v Henry (1999) 48 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74 The Queen v de Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tyler Samuel Williams (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr G Ramage QC (Applicant) Ms C Gleeson (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate