Director of Public Prosecutions v Woods
[2025] TASSC 61
•17 October 2025
[2025] TASSC 61
| COURT: | SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA |
| CITATION: | Director of Public Prosecutions v Woods [2025] TASSC 61 |
| PARTIES: | DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECTIONS |
| v | |
| WOODS, Keith Wayne | |
| FILE NO: | 728/2025 |
| DELIVERED ON: | 17 October 2025 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Burnie |
| HEARING DATE: | 26 September 2025 |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Jago J |
| CATCHWORDS: |
Criminal Law – Sentence – Post-custodial orders – Other types of post-custodial orders – Other matters – Application for high risk offender order – Respondent sentenced to 3-year custodial term – Earliest release date 20 October 2025 – Long history of family violence offending- mental health and addiction issues – Respondent would be denied the support he needs and his re-integration with the community would be put at significant risk in absence of order – Respondent poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence unless a high risk offender order is made – Order made.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3425]
Legislation:
Dangerous Criminals and High-Risk Offenders Act 2021
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant: A Norton Respondent: H Goss
Solicitors:
Applicant: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions Respondent: Tasmania Legal Aid
| Judgment Number: | [2025] TASSC 61 |
| Number of paragraphs: | 19 |
Serial No 61/2025 File No 728/2025
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v KEITH WAYNE WOODS
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT | JAGO J 17 October 2025 |
1 The Director of Public Prosecutions, by application made 21 August 2025, applies for a High Risk Offender Order in respect of the respondent, Keith Wayne Woods, who is aged 33.
2 The application is made pursuant to s 33(1) of the Dangerous Criminals and High Risk Offenders Act 2021. The application is made whilst Mr Woods is serving a custodial sentence for the crimes of Criminal Code assault and wounding, both of which are serious offences within the meaning of the Act. Mr Woods is due for release on 20 October 2025. The respondent is therefore a relevant offender as he has attained the age of 18 years and has been convicted of a serious offence and is currently serving a custodial sentence for that serious offence as at the time the application is made.
3 I may only a High Risk Offender Order in relation to Mr Woods if I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence unless a High Risk Offender Order is made: s 35(2).
4 Section 36 of the Act provides for the matters to be considered in determining whether to make a High Risk Offender Order. The safety of the community is the paramount consideration in determining in whether to make such an order: s 36(1). Further, I must have regard to the matters satisfied in s 36(2). To that end, I have considered a behaviour and management report, prepared by the High Risk Offender's Assessment Committee, and dated 22 May 2025. I have also considered an addendum High Risk Offender Order report, prepared by Community Corrections and dated 24 September 2025. I have considered a Risk Assessment Report, prepared by Dr Georgina O'Donnell and dated 19 August 2025. I have also considered the respondent's record of prior convictions and, in particular, have had reference to Comments on Passing Sentence, dated 5 February 2018. These were sentencing comments of Pearce J in respect to one count of Criminal Code assault. It was a family violence crime committed on 7 June 2016. I have also had regard to Comments on Passing Sentence of myself, dated 22 January 2024, where I sentenced Mr Woods for the crime of Criminal Code assault and wounding. These crimes were also committed in a family violence context.
5 My consideration of this material satisfies me as to the following:
•
The respondent is 33 years of age. He has been in and out of custody since the age of 12. Many of his offences as a youth were for matters of dishonesty and offences against good order. They included offences against police.
•
Since 2010, the respondent has been convicted of numerous counts of common assault, predominately in a family violence context.
•
Since 2015, he has been sentenced to terms of imprisonment of increasing severity for violent offending, predominately offences of common assault.
•
In particular, I note in February 2015, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, three months of which was suspended for three counts of common assault, two counts of breach of interim family violence order, and one count of breach police family violence order. In 2016, the suspended portion of that period of imprisonment was activated following further violent
2 No 61/2025
offending, which included assault a police office, resist a police officer and use abusive language to a police officer. In September 2016, he was again sentenced to a period of imprisonment for the offence of common assault.
• In February 2018, he was convicted in the Burnie Supreme Court of the crime of Criminal Code assault and sentenced to one year and three months' imprisonment. That sentence of imprisonment was wholly suspended. That crime occurred in a family violence text. He later breached the terms of that suspended sentence by re-offending, including by further assaulting the same complainant. The sentence was activated on 22 May 2018. • In 2019, he was again sentenced to a period of imprisonment for a matter of common assault. This offence was committed against another prison whilst he was in custody. Additionally, the respondent has been convicted of numerous counts of breaching the terms of family violence order. • In August 2021, the respondent was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, four months of which was suspended for six counts of common assault and various other offences. Several of these counts also occurred in a family violence context. The four-month portion of that sentence, which was suspended, was subsequently activated in October 2021, following the respondent's conviction for several counts of breaching family violence orders and breaching bail, amongst other offences. 6 It would be fair to say the respondent has a terrible history for offending generally, and a particularly poor history for violent offending in a family violence context.
7 I take into account the respondent's personal circumstances. There is no question he has had a very disadvantaged childhood. He was taken into departmental care at the age of 12 because of neglect and violence within his family home. Once in departmental care, he was subject to further abuse and violence. The respondent commenced using illicit drugs at about the age of eight, and drug addiction has been an ongoing difficulty for all of his life. The respondent has experienced significant difficulties with homelessness. This has been exacerbated by his history of being regularly incarcerated. An evaluation of his record of prior convictions reveals that since 2015, the respondent has been constantly incarcerated, save for a period of about four and a half years.
8 The respondent suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Bi-polar disorder and has an intellectual disability. He receives NDIS support.
9 The behavioural and management reports indicate that upon the respondent arriving in custody in October 2022, he displayed a poor attitude and his behaviour was dysregulated. That necessitated him being housed in maximum security. Over time, however, his behaviour has settled and since May 2024, he has been housed in minimum security.
10 The respondent has completed some programmes whilst incarcerated. In May 2023, he completed the Resilience Programme. In July 2023, he was offered the opportunity to participate in the Family Violence Offender Programme but failed to attend the appointments and was thereafter removed from the programme. He has also participated in some alcohol and drug counselling.
11 The respondent has held various employment positions whilst incarcerated, but many of them have been terminated as a consequence of poor performance or disciplinary charges.
12 A level of service/case management inventory was conducted in respect to Mr Woods in June 2024. This is an assessment that measures the risk and need factors of adult offenders. The respondent was assessed as requiring a very high level of intervention.
3 No 61/2025
13 The report also indicates the respondent has been subject to various community correction orders since 2011. The respondent has frequently re-offended whilst subject to community-based orders. This includes a drug treatment order for which he was sentenced in August 2011, but it was cancelled due to non-compliance. Whilst working with Community Corrections, the respondent has openly expressed his reluctance to engage in programmes directed at addressing his risks and needs.
14 The report indicates the respondent is considered at high risk of committing further family violence, given his past history and his apparent unwillingness to commit to engaging in programmes that might address the issues which underly his offending.
15 I note the addendum behaviour and management report attaches an occupational therapy report, which provides information pertaining to the respondent's NDIS funding. He has received funding for psychological support, occupational therapy, and assistance in managing and developing day to day living and life skills. The occupational therapy report discloses that the respondent scores "extremely severe" in terms of anxiety, depression and stress, and indicates that the respondent has difficulty in maintaining routines and performing tasks independently as a result of his various conditions. It also notes that he has a reduced capacity to develop and maintain relationships, is at risk of others taking advantage of him, and has difficulty in accessing the community and interacting in unfamiliar settings. Continual use of illicit substances whilst in the community, is also noted as an ongoing concern. The recommendation is that the respondent be referred to alcohol and drug counselling upon his ultimate release.
16 The risk assessment conducted by Dr Georgina O'Donnell, in accordance with s 29 of the Act, notes that the respondent has been involved on several occasions in serious family violence, including the use of a weapon. Dr O'Donnell notes the seriousness of this offending has escalated over time. Dr O'Donnell notes that the respondent's engagement with service providers within the community, has been poor and whilst the respondent has a NDIS plan in place, there remains a high risk that he will not properly engage with such services within the community. Dr O'Donnell notes that a general violence risk assessment was conducted and the respondent presented with a high number of risk factors for further violent offending. An intimate partner risk assessment was also conducted. Again, the respondent presented with a high number of risk factors. Indeed, Dr O'Donnell notes that nearly all risk factors were present, save for those relating to victim vulnerability, which did not apply because the respondent is not currently in the community. In summary, Dr O'Donnell concluded that the respondent is likely to commit another serious offence unless a high-risk offender order is in place. Further Dr O'Donell concluded the imposition of a high-risk offender order may positively contribute to risk management and enhance his opportunity for successful change. The report confirms Mr Woods level of need is high, his history of compliance with community supports is very poor and he has been engaged in a strong cycle of recidivism since the age of 12. Without conditions which are directed at managing Mr Woods within the community and targeting his multitude of risk factors, it is highly probable that he will commit a further serious offence.
17 The material to which I have had regard, satisfies me of the following matters:
(i) There has been an increase in the severity of the respondent's violent offending. Increased periods of imprisonment do not seem to have deterred the respondent from such offending.
(ii) The violence offending has spanned multiple intimate relationships.
(iii) The respondent has not engaged in any meaningful interventions to address his underlying issues and thereby address the risk of further family violence offending.
(iv) Substance abuse remains a significant risk factor for the respondent. His history of illicit substance abuse, particularly within the community, is high.
4 No 61/2025
(v) The respondent's personal circumstances, including his trauma history, his intellectual disability, his ADHD, his Bi-polar condition, his unstable accommodation, and his limited pro-social network are all risk factors in terms of him returning to illicit substance abuse; and
(vi) The risk assessments conclude that the respondent possesses a high number of on-going risk factors indicative of a high risk of further violent offending.
18 I am satisfied on the basis of the material available to me, that there is a high degree of probability that the respondent poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence, unless a High-Risk Offender Order is made. It is, therefore, appropriate that I make a High-Risk Offender Order in relation to Mr Woods. I note that Mr Woods did not contest the making of a high risk offender order, but opposed the imposition of some conditions, particularly the electronic monitoring condition and the curfew condition. Taking into account all of the material I have referenced I am satisfied both of those conditions should be imposed, but I will craft them in a way which allows his probation officer to respond to an increase or decrease in risk factors and allow for exceptions to the operation of those conditions. This is in keeping with the recommendations of Dr O'Donnel. She was of the view that stringent conditions were necessary as Mr Woods reintegrated into the community given his long history of non-compliance with community services, and his past reluctance to engage in programmes that might assist him to change. I note that Mr Woods is currently displaying a positive attitude and expressing a desire to make change, but his resolve is yet to be tested in the community. He will be living in vulnerable circumstances (in a caravan). There is a high likelihood he will associate with anti-social individuals and drug users in this environment. His intellectual impairment increases his vulnerability and decreases his capacity to resist "peer pressure". His is susceptible to the influence of others. Given all these considerations, I am satisfied it is appropriate that a curfew and electronic monitoring condition be imposed, but with a discretion being available to his probation officer to make appropriate allowances.
19 I make a High risk offender order for a period of 5 years from his date of release from custody. The order will include, as it must, all of the conditions set out in s 38(1) of the Act. He is to report to a probation officer at Community Corrections, Liverpool Street, Hobart by close of business on Monday, 20 October 2025. In addition, with reference to s 38(2) of the Act, I impose the following additional conditions:
• The respondent must not consume or possess any illicit drugs; • The respondent must not consume alcohol; •
The respondent must, when directed to do so by a police officer, probation officer or prescribed officer, submit to a breath test, or other test, and provide a valid sample to enable testing for the presence of alcohol, or illicit drugs;
•
That the respondent must not enter or remain within a licenced premise, that is a bar, pub or nightclub, unless prior approval is obtained from a probation officer;
•
That the respondent must engage in any psychiatric, psychological, therapeutic or counselling interventions as reasonably directed by a probation officer;
•
That the respondent must, during the operational period of the order, submit to electronic monitoring, by wearing an electronic monitoring device, unless otherwise determined by a probation officer;
•
That the respondent must not remove, tamper with, damage or disable any device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring, and the respondent must not allow anyone else,
5 No 61/2025
except for a probation officer, police officer or prescribed officer, to remove, tamper with,
damage or disable, any device or equipment used for the purpose of electronic monitoring; and
• That the respondent must, between the hours of 10pm and 6am daily, be at premises approved by a probation officer, and present himself to police during those hours if required to do so, save and except if the respondent is not, for a relevant reason as defined by s 38(3) of the Act, at the premises, or if the respondent has the prior approval of a probation officer to be absent from those premises.
0
0
1