R v Williams [2019] NSWDC 804

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Williams [2019] NSWDC 804 Hearing dates: 10 October 2019 Decision date: 10 October 2019 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Haesler SC DCJ Decision: Aggregate sentence of three years and eight months. Non-parole period of two years and two months. Catchwords: SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentencing – a series of serious offences – totality – parity – life of considerable disadvantage – never lived a normal community life – need for staged release into the community. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 Cases Cited: Attorney General's Application No. 1 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 Category: Sentence Parties: Joshua Williams (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions Representation: Counsel: Mr D McCallum (for the offender)

Solicitors: Morrisons Law (for the offender) Ms N Olender, Director of Public Prosecutions File Number(s): 2018/00121569; 2018/00198434

Judgment- Ex Tempore Revised 1. Joshua Williams is still a young man. He was born in 1990. His youth was characterised by what a respected psychologist described as "dislocation and abandonment." He spent much of his teen years either living by his wits on the street or in juvenile detention. He has spent much of his adult life going in and out of custody. 2. He has committed offences while in custody and his gaol record is not a good one. He was released after serving a number of sentences on 25 August 2017. He was not subject to parole or guidance by the Parole Service, but it appears at least initially he was able to establish himself in the community. However, a pattern of association with others of a similar criminal lifestyle soon re-emerged and in March and April 2018 he committed further offences. 3. He has been in custody since 17 April 2018. He stands for sentence today for five serious offences. He has always indicated acceptance of responsibility for those crimes, however to accommodate the provision of a count on an ex-officio indictment, an indictment was presented today and he confirmed his guilt in relation to all five matters. He will have the full benefit of his plea of guilty so far as its utilitarian value is concerned. That early guilty plea and another matter, to which I will refer shortly, gives me a small amount of confidence that he has matured and is willing to turn his back on the lifestyle which has blighted his life since he was a young boy. 4. There are five matters for sentence. 1. Offence 1 - Indictment count 4. The offence of accessory after the fact to break enter and steal at Kiama Downs on 13 March 2018; s 112(2) Crimes Act 1900, s 350 Crimes Act; maximum penalty five years. 2. Offence 2 - Indictment count 1: that the offence of 9 April aggravated break enter and steal of premises s 112(2) Crimes Act; maximum penalty 20 years for an offence which falls objectively in the middle of the range, a standard non-parole period of five years. The circumstance of aggravation is that he was in company. 3. Offence 3 - Indictment count 2: knowingly being carried in a stolen conveyance which was the property taken from the earlier incident, s 154A(1)(b) Crimes Act; maximum penalty five years. 4. Offence 4 - Indictment count 3: on 9 April he did intimidate Ms Poole with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm. Section 13(1) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007; maximum penalty five years. 5. Offence 5 - Indictment count 5: accessory after the fact to an offence committed by Christopher West of firing a firearm in a manner likely to injure or endanger safety. West's offences were pursuant to s 93G(1)(c) of the Crimes Act. Accessorial liability after the fact carries a maximum penalty of five years, s 350 Crimes Act. 1. Close attention must be paid to maximum penalties as they are one guide to the exercise of my sentencing discretion. Content should always be given to a standard non-parole period. However, the circumstances of the particular offence of aggravated break enter and steal do not put it in the middle of the range. In fact given the enormity of the range of such offences, it falls towards the bottom of that range. There are other matters calling for variation from the standard non-parole period to which I will later refer. 2. Any matter for sentence requires an examination of what was done and an assessment of the objective circumstances of the respective offences. There are detailed agreed facts before the Court. I will summarise them briefly.