It’s been argued the man who was remotely involved in what was meant to be an attempted burglary, which ended in the murder of Glenn Walewicz, has spent enough time in prison and shouldn’t receive any further supervision upon his release.
Jayden Douglas Williams was not present at the murder of Mr Walewicz, however he pleaded guilty to being involved in what he thought was going to be an aggravated burglary.
He previously had pleaded not guilty to his involvement but changed his plea in June.
At the sentence hearing in the ACT Supreme Court on Friday (4 August), defence barrister Stephen Robinson made it clear Williams’ role was “aiding and abetting” what was meant to be “not a killing or murder”.
“Mr Williams, unlike others, was not responsible for Mr Walewicz’s death,” he said.
It has been alleged Williams’ mother, Nicole Williams, was the “architect” behind the incident.
She is awaiting trial over her alleged involvement and has pleaded not guilty to seven charges.
Gary Taylor and a 17-year-old have both pleaded guilty to murder over Mr Walewicz’s death, while the getaway driver Reatile Ncube received a suspended two-year sentence, followed by a good behaviour order.
Mr Robinson argued Williams had good prospects for rehabilitation, showing the court examples of artwork Williams had completed in prison as an example of the “somewhat more uplifting” prospects for his future.
“Your Honour, I don’t know much about art, but if Mr Williams couldn’t sell these … I’d be shocked,” Mr Robinson submitted.
He also argued Williams should not receive any more prison time after spending 13.5 months in remand already, making a comparison to the sentence Ncube received.
“He’s simply done enough time … perhaps [more] than he’s needed to,” Mr Robinson submitted.
The barrister also argued his client shouldn’t have to be subject to parole, given it could take up to three months for his hearing to reach the Sentence Administration Board.
“An extra three months would see Mr Williams in custody for roughly 16.5 months, versus Mr Ncube for six.”
“What Mr Williams needs … is a new start, unencumbered.”
Supreme Court Justice Chrissa Loukas-Karlsson responded: “Unencumbered? I need to give that some thought.”
Prosecutor Trent Hickey said there was “very little disagreement” over the agreed sequence of events, but he argued no parole period or supervision for Williams wouldn’t be appropriate.
He submitted while Williams wasn’t present at the crime, it “must have been apparent” to him that someone would be at the intended home to be targeted and that there would be “some degree of trauma”.
“This was a deliberate involvement in a home invasion,” Mr Hickey said.
He also submitted that given Williams’ “deprived” childhood and background, it was even more important he received some form of supervision and support in the community.
“Someone with that background needs support [if] they’re to stay on a law-abiding path,” Mr Hickey said.
Justice Loukas-Karlsson told Williams the court recognised he had a hard upbringing and that he wasn’t charged with Mr Walewicz’s murder.
“But what occurred in this case is very serious, you know that,” she said.
Williams nodded back in agreement.
He’ll be sentenced on 14 August.