Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Woodford

DPP v Woodford

Case [2017] VSCA 312 31 October 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0042

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
v
HARLEY DAVID WOODFORD	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG, OSBORN and PRIEST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 October 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 October 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 312
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Woodford (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Justice J Dixon, 24 February 2017)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Crown appeal – Child homicide – Respondent, in spontaneous act of anger, stepped on three year old child, resulting in death – Sentenced to nine years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of six years and six months – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Use of extrinsic material in construing provision creating new offence – Whether manifested legislative intent to have courts impose significant heavier sentences for child homicide than traditionally given for manslaughter of young children – Respondent confessed to offence in circumstances where conviction might not have been possible absent his having done so – Significant sentence discount necessary by reason of confession – Sentence lenient but not wholly outside range – Appeal dismissed – Crimes Act 1958 s 5A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C B Boyce SC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Ms M Fox QC with Mr S A Moglia	Lethbridges Barristers & Solicitors

WEINBERG JA
OSBORN JA
PRIEST JA:

On 17 February 2017, the respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of child homicide, contrary to s 5A of the Crimes Act 1958. He was sentenced to a term of nine years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years and six months. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years’ imprisonment.

The Director of Public Prosecutions now appeals against that sentence. He contends that both the total effective sentence, and the non-parole period, are manifestly inadequate. He relies upon the following particulars:

The learned sentencing judge failed to have sufficient regard to:
(a)       The nature of the offence being child homicide;
(b)       The change in regime that occurred when this offence was introduced;
(c)       The aggravating feature of the age of the victim;
(d)      The applicable maximum penalty;
(e)       The objective gravity of the offending;
(f)       The seriousness of the offence;
(g)       The gross breach of trust;
(h)The aggravating features of the concealment of the crime causing the deceased pain and misery and the delay in obtaining medical attention; and

(i)        The need for general and specific deterrence.
The learned sentencing judge placed too much weight on matters in mitigation, including the following:
(j)        The respondent’s youth;
(k)       The respondent’s remorse; and
(l)        The respondent’s reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

Child homicide

The offence of child homicide was introduced into the Crimes Act by the Crimes Amendment (Child Homicide) Act 2008. Section 5A provides:

A person who, by his or her conduct, kills a child who is under the age of 6 years in circumstances that,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP v Woodford

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Harley David Woodford [2017] VSCA 312
Case: [2017] VSCA 312
Decision Date: 31 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Woodford involved the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealing against the sentence given to the respondent, Woodford, who had been convicted of child homicide. Woodford had killed his three-year-old child in a spontaneous act of anger by stepping on the child, leading to its death. The County Court sentenced Woodford to nine years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years and six months. The DPP argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, while Woodford contended that the sentence was within the appropriate range.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and if the use of extrinsic material was appropriate in interpreting the statutory provision that created the new offence of child homicide. Another issue was whether there was a legislative intent for courts to impose significantly heavier sentences for child homicide than those traditionally given for manslaughter of young children. The court also needed to consider the impact of Woodford’s confession on the sentence, which warranted a significant discount.

The court held that while the sentence was lenient, it was not wholly outside the appropriate range of penalties for the offence of child homicide. The court examined the extrinsic material and concluded that there was no clear legislative intent for significantly heavier sentences for child homicide compared to manslaughter of young children. Additionally, the court found that Woodford’s confession warranted a substantial discount in his sentence. Given these factors, the appeal was dismissed. The court found that although the sentence was lenient, it was not manifestly inadequate. Therefore, the appeal was unsuccessful, and the original sentence stood.

Orders