R v Williams [2004] NSWCCA 224

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v Williams [2004] NSWCCA 224 HEARING DATE(S) : 1 July 2004 JUDGMENT DATE : 6 July 2004

JUDGMENT OF : Studdert J at 1; Dunford J at 26; Howie J at 27 DECISION : Appeal dismissed.

Criminal Appeal Act, ss 5, 7 LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Appeal Rules, r 23C Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, ss 11, 14, 39 R v Greig (1996) 89 A Crim R 254 CASES CITED : R v Logan [2004] NSWCCA 101 R v Stephens [1999] NSWSC 811 PARTIES : Regina v William Patrick Williams FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60081/04 COUNSEL : P. Power SC (Crown) In person (Appellant) SOLICITORS : S. Kavanagh (Crown)

LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 00/51/1039 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Ducker DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60081/04

STUDDERT J DUNFORD J HOWIE J

Tuesday 6 July 2004 REGINA v WILLIAM PATRICK WILLIAMS Judgment 1 HIS HONOUR: The appellant, William Patrick Williams, was unrepresented. He came before this Court after filing a notice of appeal which expressed the appeal as being one against conviction and sentence. The appellant stated his grounds of appeal for the purposes of r 23C of the Criminal Appeal Rules as follows: "1. My rights were taken from me when my lawyer Penny Mainprize wanted to go with the Doctors report. I did not want this and told Penny Mainprize. But she said that I am going with the doctors report. I again said that I did not want to go with the doctors report. She said no I am going with the doctors report. 2. I did not want the defence of mental illness as my defence. I just wanted to fight the matter in a normal court of law where I am found guilty or not guilty and given a jail term or a not guilty verdict." 2 To the like effect the appellant filed submissions in support of his appeal expressed thus: "Because I am not guilty of the crimes that I am being charged with my motives were to frighten Mr Henderson with the use of the knife not to harm him in any way shape or form. My lawyer Penny Mainprize said and wanted to use the doctors report. I said that I did not want the doctors report and any thing to do with the ground of not guilty due to mental illness. But Penny Mainprize said no I am going with the doctors report. I lost my legal rights to defend the matter, case in the manner I which I wanted to defend the case." 3 His oral submissions were to similar effect. 4 Following events that occurred on 9 June 2000, the appellant was charged with wounding with intent to murder, and alternatively with malicious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. There was a hearing pursuant to s 11 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, which hearing took place at the District Court at Inverell on 30 April 2001. At that hearing medical evidence in the form of reports from Dr Nielssen and from Dr Westmore were placed before the jury, and I shall refer to the content of these later. The jury found the appellant was unfit to stand trial. 5 Then, after a review by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, conducted pursuant to s 14 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, there was a direction given by the Attorney General under s 18 of the same statute that a special hearing be conducted. That special hearing again took place at the District Court at Inverell on 7 November 2001. The indictment charged the appellant with malicious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. 6 At the hearing a number of witnesses were called whose evidence I will now shortly summarise: