R v Craig Andrew Woodley - [2013] NSWDC 14

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Craig Andrew Woodley [2013] NSWDC 14
Hearing dates: 16-26 October 2012
Decision date: 26 February 2013
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
See Orders at paragraph 86

Catchwords: Criminal Law. Act of Indecency; grooming a child under 16 years of age by exposing to indecent material and by providing an intoxicating substance.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316
R (Cth) v Poynder [2007] NSWCCA 157
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Craig Andrew Woodley - Offender
Representation: Director of Public Prosecutions -
Mr R Cooley
A Williams - The Offender

File Number(s): 10/72635
Publication restriction: Complainant's Name Pursuant to s578A Crimes Act 1900 there is to be no publication of the victim's name or anything that may lead to identification of the victim. Identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with the statute.

Judgment

On 26 October 2012 the jury delivered verdicts of guilty on the three counts with which the offender was charged, namely,

Count 1 - On 29 October 2009 at Claremont Meadows in the State of New South Wales committed an act of indecency towards EN, a person under the age of 16 years, namely 15 years, in circumstances of aggravation, namely that EN was at the time under the authority of Craig Andrew Woodley. - S 610(1) of the Crimes Act 1900

Count 2 - Between 27 October 2009 and 2 November 2009 at Claremont Meadows in the State of New South Wales did expose EN, a child then under the age of 16 years, to indecent material with the intention of making it easier to procure the child for unlawful sexual activity with himself - S 66EB(3) Crimes Act 1900

Count 3 - On or about 31 October 2009 at Claremont Meadows in the State of New South Wales did provide EN, a child then under the age of 16 years with an intoxicating substance, namely amphetamines, with the intention of making it easier to procure the child for unlawful sexual activity with himself - S 66EB(3) Crimes Act 1900

In respect of Count 1 the maximum penalty prescribed by s 610 (1) of the Crimes Act is five years. In respect of Counts 2 & 3 the maximum penalty prescribed by s 66 EB (3) of the Crimes Act is ten years in relation to each offence.

At the commencement of the trial I made an order pursuant to s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 prohibiting the identification of EN ("the victim").

The accused has been in custody since the verdicts were returned, and that time in custody will be taken into account.

Circumstances of the Offending

Based on the evidence at trial, I make the following findings of fact. The evidence comprised the Crown case against…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Craig Andrew Woodley and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWDC 14
Decision Date: 26 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Craig Andrew Woodley, the defendant stood accused of grooming a child under 16 years of age by exposing the child to indecent material and providing the child with an intoxicating substance. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Craig Andrew Woodley, faced serious allegations that included the grooming of a minor through inappropriate exposure to explicit content and the supply of a substance that could potentially compromise the child's well-being.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of specific statutory provisions under the Crimes Act 1958. The court had to determine whether the evidence presented met the legal thresholds for the offences of grooming a child under 16 years of age and supplying an intoxicating substance to a minor. The defence argued that the interactions were not of a nature to amount to grooming and that the substance provided was not harmful or intoxicating. The prosecution needed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were deliberate and constituted the alleged offences.

The court meticulously examined the evidence, including witness testimonies, digital communications, and expert opinions on the nature of the interactions. It was found that the defendant had indeed engaged in behaviour that met the statutory criteria for grooming, as he had exposed the child to explicit content and provided a substance that could be considered intoxicating. The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated the elements of the offences. As a result, the defendant was found guilty on both counts. The detailed reasoning and analysis by the court underscored the seriousness of the offences and the need for stringent measures to protect minors from such predatory behaviour.

Orders

Orders of the court

See Orders at paragraph 86

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Craig Andrew Woodley [2013] NSWDC 14
Hearing dates:	16-26 October 2012
Decision date:	26 February 2013
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	See Orders at paragraph 86
Catchwords:	Criminal Law. Act of Indecency; grooming a child under 16 years of age by exposing to indecent material and by providing an intoxicating substance.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	R v Asplund [2010] NSWCCA 316 R (Cth) v Poynder [2007] NSWCCA 157 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Craig Andrew Woodley - Offender
Representation:	Director of Public Prosecutions - Mr R Cooley A Williams - The Offender
File Number(s):	10/72635
Publication restriction:	Complainant's Name Pursuant to s578A Crimes Act 1900 there is to be no publication of the victim's name or anything that may lead to identification of the victim. Identifying information has been removed from this version of the judgment to comply with the statute.