CITATION: R v Mark Terrence Woods [2005] NSWSC 1176
HEARING DATE(S): 28/03/2003, 05/09/2003, 30/10/2003, 13/08/2004, 27/05/2005, 25/07/2005, 11/11/2005
JUDGMENT DATE :
25 November 2005JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J
DECISION: 1 The application is granted. 2 In respect of the offence of maliciously set fire to a motor vehicle knowing that ML was in that vehicle, the applicant is sentenced to a term of 16 years imprisonment, to date from 4 December 1986 and to expire on 3 December 2004. 3 In respect of the offence of feloniously wounding ML with intent to murder, the applicant sentenced to a minimum term of 20 years and six months imprisonment, to commence on 4 December 1986 and to expire on 3 June 2007, with an additional term to commence on 4 December 1986 and to continue for the balance of his natural life.
CATCHWORDS: Redetermination of life sentences for non-fatal offences - related sexual offences - pleas of guilty - applicant's conduct in custody - completed CUBIT program
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Sentencing Act 1989
Sentencing Amendment (Transitional) Act 1997CASES CITED: Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Baker [2001] NSWSC 412
R v Baker (2002) 130 A Crim R 417
R v Bowtell [2000] NSWSC 803
R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148
R v Crump (NSWCCA) unrep 30 May 1994
R v Durocher-Yvon (2003) 58 NSWLR 581
R v Page [2002] NSWSC 1067
R v Purdy (1992) 65 A Crim R 441
R v Salameh [1999] NSWCCA 300
R v Totten [2003] NSWCCA 207
R v Towner [2002] NSWSC 951
R v Veen [2000] NSWSC 656
R v Websdale [2000] NSWSC 636
R v White [2000] NSWSC 555
R v Wright [2000] NSWSC 568
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Veen v The Queen (No2) (1987-8) 164 CLR 465PARTIES: Regina
Mark Terrence WoodsFILE NUMBER(S): SC L00013/95
COUNSEL: P Power SC (Crown)
J Stratton SC (Applicant)SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown
Legal Aid Commission
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISIONBUDDIN J
FRIDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2005
JUDGMENT – Application for Redetermination of Life SentencesL00013/95 - MARK TERRENCE WOODS
1 HIS HONOUR: The applicant seeks a redetermination of two life sentences which were imposed upon him by Yeldham J on 5 May 1987. The applicant has been in continuous custody since his arrest on 4 December 1986 (a period of almost 19 years) in respect of these and related offences.
2 The applicant pleaded guilty to an indictment containing five counts, namely that he:
(1) being armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife, did rob ML of $50, contrary to s 97 of the Crimes Act 1900 ;
(2) had sexual intercourse with ML at Cooks Hill without her consent, contrary to s 61B of the Crimes Act 1900 ;
(3) had…
Continue reading R v Mark Terrence Woods
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Mark Terrence Woods [2005] NSWSC 1176
- Case
- [2005] NSWSC 1176
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to assess the appropriate weight to be given to the respondent's completion of the CUBIT program, a cognitive-behavioural intervention designed to address the underlying issues contributing to sexual offending. The appeal also considered the respondent's conduct in custody, including whether it demonstrated a reduction in the risk of reoffending. The court needed to determine if these factors warranted a redetermination of the sentences.
The Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the original life sentences were manifestly inadequate. The judge recognised the respondent's completion of the CUBIT program and his conduct in custody as mitigating factors, but emphasised that they did not sufficiently address the seriousness of the offences or the risk of reoffending. The court found that the original sentences did not adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes or provide sufficient deterrence and protection to the community. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the matter was remitted to the trial judge for redetermination of the sentences.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.