Director of Public Prosecutions v Woods (a Pseudonym)

[2020] VCC 547

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

ROBERT WOODS (A Pseudonym)

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LYON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 May 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Woods (A Pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 547

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr J. Siggins	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Sharpley	Davis Legal

HIS HONOUR: 

1Robert Woods[1] you were found guilty by a jury after trial of one count of incest.  The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years' imprisonment.

[1] A Pseudonym.

2The facts upon which the jury verdict was founded may be briefly stated.  The complainant in this matter is your daughter Chelsea Woods.[2]  Chelsea was the middle child and only female of your three children (a fourth child died years earlier).

[2] A Pseudonym.

3You lived with your wife and three children in Victoria until you and your wife separated at the end of 2008, early 2009.  In approximately 2011 your ex-wife moved with her new partner.  The three children moved with her but your ex-partner became ill and the children returned to live with their maternal grandmother.  In early 2012 you were granted custody of your three children and another child from a previous relationship.

4At least from the time the children came to live with you, you had a severe drinking problem and were probably in the grips of alcoholism.  There was evidence from your oldest child James[3] that you commenced drinking from the time you got home from work and stopped only before you went to bed.  Your life with your children appeared to be marked by your isolation from them as you drank, frequent arguments with Chelsea and James, and a requirement that they did much of the house work.

[3] A Pseudonym.

5By early 2014, James had had enough and went to live with his mother.  Chelsea and her younger brother stayed with you.

6Chelsea gave evidence that shortly after James moved out and when you were intoxicated, your behaviour towards her became increasingly sexualised.  She gave evidence that when you hugged her you would move your hand down to her buttocks; you started coming into her bed at night either naked, wearing a bath robe or just your underpants; you would either partially or fully undress your daughter; in bed you would feel her breasts and stomach; and finally, she gave evidence of one other incident of sexual penetration.

7The penetration the subject of the charge occurred one night when you came into her bed.  Chelsea was lying on her side towards the wall away from you. She woke to find you penetrating her vagina with your penis from behind.  This offending occurred shortly before her 14th birthday.

8After this offending, your daughter chose to live with her mother stating that the burden of undertaking all house work was too difficult.

9There was uncontradicted evidence that throughout the period from 2014 to 2018 your daughter went through a tumultuous, and tremendously difficult, emotional period.  Through 2018 your daughter attended about three camps conducted by an organisation which seeks to deal with emotionally troubled young persons.  After a session on sexual abuse your daughter complained to counsellors about your conduct.  This was confirmed to one of the counsellors about a week later.  The police then became involved.

10Your daughter gave evidence by way of two VARE statements and a recorded special hearing.  The first VARE statement was particularly telling.  It was emotionally very difficult for your daughter to tell the police about your conduct.

11You were arrested and interviewed in January 2019.  You admitted to police that you remember waking up in your daughter's bed on two or three occasions.  You told police that you could not otherwise remember or dispute aspects of the conduct alleged against you because of your constant state of nightly intoxication.  You denied penetrating your daughter, stating that you suffered from erectile dysfunction as a result of diabetes.

12Apart from that assertion, repeated two or three times through the course of the interview, no evidence of dysfunction was provided.

13Your current wife gave evidence that through 2017/2018 you had a loving relationship with Chelsea.

14Dr Teresa Flower, child psychiatrist, gave evidence of the tendency of many children who have a good relationship with an abusing parent and a fragile relationship with a non-abusing parent to be able to compartmentalise the abuse and lead an otherwise normal life with the abusing parent.  

15That is the evidence on which you were convicted.

16I turn now to the objective gravity and moral culpability of your offending.  In overview, your offending must be viewed as objectively very serious.  Although it involves only one allegation of penetration in the period alleged, it takes place in the context of sexualised conduct with your daughter.  As such, two observations may be made.  First, your offending involves a gross breach of trust.  Your victim was your own daughter, to whom you owed a duty of a care and responsibility as her parent.  Secondly, it cannot be said that your offending came at a single moment of poor judgement, or out of the blue.  The context in which the penetration occurred shows clearly that your sexualised conduct towards your daughter was persistent and escalating in nature, culminating in the conduct for which you were found guilty.  Your offending is also serious for the fact that you penetrated your daughter without using protection, leaving her at risk of pregnancy.

17Your moral culpability for your offending is indeed very high.  The fact that you were invariably inebriated and had no memory of your offending provides no excuse.  Indeed, the fact that you remembered waking up in your daughter’s bed either near naked or naked on two or three occasions provided a clear warning sign to you that your behaviour had to be addressed.  You chose instead to do nothing about it.

18The crime of incest is abhorred by the community.  Incest is a repugnant offence that strikes at the core of the family relationship and involves a fundamental breach of trust.  Incest stands in total conflict with your responsibilities as a parent to protect and nurture your daughter.  This was your own biological child that you abused.  Instead of protecting your daughter, you caused her serious harm. 

19The victim impact statement of Chelsea demonstrates the very great harm your actions have caused.  It is apparent that your daughter has suffered tremendously over the last number of years.  It is to be hoped that she is able to make a recovery and put this matter behind her.

20Likewise, her mother feels a tremendous sense of guilt.  There should be no guilt when one parent leaves her child in the care of the other parent.  You breached the trust a child implicitly places in their parent.  You also breached the trust that her mother placed in you; that you would at the very least protect and not abuse your own child.

21There is no evidence of remorse for your offending.  In fact, I note that in the psychological report of Warren Simmons dated 17 April 2020, you maintain your innocence.

22Your offending must be met by principles of deterrence, denunciation and just punishment.

23Warren Simmons psychologist assesses your prospect of recidivism as low, and diminishing as you grow older.  I accept that specific deterrence and protection of the community have a lesser role to play in sentencing you for this offence.

24I turn now to your personal circumstances.  You are 58 years of age.  You are the oldest of five children though a younger brother died some years ago.  Your parents are still alive.

25You have no prior convictions.

26You had a good, uneventful childhood.  You left technical school at the end of year 10.  You worked variously through a carpentry apprenticeship, working with your father for a period of time; as a trade assistant, and then in conveyor operations for 11 years.  You owned your own home and you had considerable savings.

27At some point, you owned your own maintenance business and then in 2004 became the grounds person to a secondary school.  You continued that work until you were arrested.  After your arrest you worked for a food manufacturing company until you were remanded into custody.

28You met your wife to be Alice when you were 26.  She was considerably younger than you and was in another relationship.  When you two commenced your relationship, Alice had had a child and was pregnant with the second child.  You took them as your own.  Your relationship with Alice continued until 2009 when she commenced a relationship with another person and moved.

29As I have already outlined at the commencement of these remarks, you and Alice had three children together, including the complainant in these proceedings.

30You have a long history of consistent and heavy drinking.  You commenced consuming alcohol aged 18.  You reported to the psychologist you would drink on the weekend with friends, then drink after playing golf, and in the evening during social catch ups.  Following the breakdown of your relationship with Alice you reported drinking most nights, and that a slab would last no more than two days.

31You continued this pattern of drinking about a dozen cans a night through the period that you had custody of the children and until you were able to afford to again move into your own home.  In 2017 you met your current partner Natalie through your love of golf.  You married last year and she remained supportive of you during your trial.  Since your time with Natalie your alcohol consumption decreased although you would still drink each night until you were remanded.

32In 1995 you suffered a cerebral aneurysm rupture. You told the psychologist you suffer some memory difficulties since that time.  You had your gallbladder removed, you suffer from gout hypertension and long-standing diabetes.  You only commenced insulin treatment five years ago.

33Overall, I assess the prospects of your rehabilitation as good.  As I have already stated, Mr Simmons considers that, statistically, your risk of reoffending is low and diminishing over the years.  Mr Simmons considers there is little in your history to suggest there is any reason to increase the risk level for reoffending.  Moreover, your family upbringing, the presence of the support of your wife Natalie, your solid work history and your own efforts in considerably reducing your alcohol consumption suggest that you have a number of protective factors available to you upon your release from prison to assist in your rehabilitation.  Mr Simmons considers that you would benefit from completing offender behaviour programs whilst in custody.

34Moreover, the reference from your sister and the continued support provided by your wife make it clear that outside this offending you are seen by others in a vastly different light to that cast over you by this conduct.

35Mr Sharpley submitted that the sentence imposed in this case ought be moderated by the fact that you have no prior convictions and for the fact that the trial was run in a manner which put the prosecution to its proof rather than amounting to an attack on the credibility of the complainant.

36I accept that you have no prior convictions but on the second point I note that you have maintained your innocence on this charge; even in light of your admission to some sexualised behaviour and an implicit acceptance of the escalation of your conduct towards your daughter.

37Mr Siggins submitted that, in the end, the nature and gravity of your offending and the objective principles that attached to it remain the dominant factors in determining the sentence I must impose upon you.

38I agree.  In the end, the dominant principles in sentencing you for this crime remain, as I have said, deterrence, denunciation and just punishment.  There is no remorse, and whilst I must take account of your prospects for rehabilitation, those prospects, as a factor in the sentencing synthesis, cannot play a significant, let alone a determinative, role.

39On the charge of incest, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of seven years.  I order that you serve a non-parole period of five years before you are eligible for parole.  I declare the period of 77 days' pre-sentence detention excluding today reckoned as already served.

40By virtue of your conviction, you will be registered under the Sex Offender Registration Act for the mandatory period of 15 years.

41Mr Woods, the obligations of the Sex Offender Registration Act are indeed onerous and many.  Because you are not in court, I am not able to provide you with the documentation in relation to that but that will be provided through the prison.  You will have a number of obligations that will attach to you for the period of 15 years.

42Now, Mr Siggins, is there anything else?

43MR SIGGINS:  Yes, sorry.  Just one moment, Your Honour, I am just in respect to the - no thank you, Your Honour, nothing arising.

44HIS HONOUR:  Right.  Mr Sharpley, is there any matter that you wish to raise?

45MR SHARPLEY:  No, Your Honour, no matters.

‑ ‑ ‑