R v Wood

Case [2014] NSWCCA 184 19 September 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wood [2014] NSWCCA 184
Hearing dates: 16/06/2014, 16/07/2014 and 18/07/2014 (supplementary written submissions)
Decision date: 19 September 2014
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Price J
Garling J
Bellew J
Decision:
(a) Leave granted to the respondent to appeal;
(b) respondent's appeal dismissed;
(c) Crown appeal allowed;
(d) Sentence imposed in the District Court of New South Wales on 22 November 2013 is quashed;
(e) In lieu thereof, sentence the respondent to imprisonment for 11 years 4 months consisting of a non-parole period of 8 years commencing on 10 November 2011, and expiring on 9 November 2019 with a balance of term of 3 years 4 months commencing on 10 November 2019 and expiring on 9 March 2023.
(f) The earliest date that the respondent will be eligible for release on parole is 9 November 2019.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - Crown appeal - respondent appeal - manslaughter - guilty plea - head sentence 6 years 8 months - non-parole period of 5 years

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - Crown appeal - whether the sentencing Judge erred in his treatment of the sentencing statistics for manslaughter - sentencing Judge had 'particular regard' to sentencing statistics - sentencing Judge stated he was constrained to provide a sentence as guided by overall pattern of current sentencing - error demonstrated - sentencing discretion neither constrained nor guided by overall patter from statistical material for manslaughter

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - Crown appeal - whether the sentencing Judge erred by failing to take into account the need for specific and general deterrence - no express reference - general deterrence - importance of general deterrence in offences involving gratuitous unprovoked violence - importance of general deterrence in offences involving violence towards the elderly - specific deterrence - lack of remorse - no finding that the respondent was unlikely to reoffend - importance of specific deterrence - error demonstrated

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - Crown appeal - whether the sentencing Judge erred in failing to make a finding in accordance with Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1987 - 1988) 164 CLR 465 that the respondent's prior criminal record meant there was a greater need for retribution, deterrence and protection of society - prior criminal history - previous offence of similarity - no specific finding made as to the impact of prior history on the sentence - error demonstrated

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - Crown appeal - whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate - serious offence of manslaughter - elderly victim - no provocation - high moral culpability - starting point of 7 years manifestly inadequate

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - respondent appeal - whether the sentencing Judge erred in not finding that there were special circumstances permitting a variation in the statutory ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period - whether first time in custody constituted a…

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 R v Wood

Details

AGLC: R v Wood [2014] NSWCCA 184
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 184
Decision Date: 19 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involves two parties, the Crown and the respondent, Wood, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, while Wood appealed on the grounds that his sentence was manifestly inadequate. The sentencing took place in the Supreme Court, with the appeal heard in the Court of Appeal. The Crown argued that the trial judge erred in several respects, including his consideration of sentencing statistics, the need for specific and general deterrence, the impact of the respondent’s prior criminal history, and the adequacy of the sentence. Wood, on the other hand, argued that the trial judge failed to find special circumstances that warranted a variation in the statutory ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the sentencing judge made any errors in his consideration of various sentencing factors. The Crown argued that the trial judge improperly relied on sentencing statistics, failed to adequately consider the need for specific and general deterrence, and did not sufficiently address the impact of the respondent’s prior criminal history. Wood contended that the trial judge should have found special circumstances that warranted a variation from the statutory ratio. The Crown further argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, given the nature of the offence and the culpability of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge indeed erred in several respects. The judge had incorrectly considered sentencing statistics, failing to appreciate that such statistics do not constrain or guide sentencing discretion. Additionally, the judge did not adequately address the need for general and specific deterrence, which are particularly important in cases involving gratuitous violence and attacks on the elderly. The court also found that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently consider the respondent’s prior criminal history in terms of its impact on retribution, deterrence, and the protection of society. Given these errors and the gravity of the offence, the Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The respondent's appeal regarding special circumstances was dismissed as there was no demonstrated error.

After considering the errors identified and the need for general deterrence, the Court of Appeal re-sentenced Wood. The starting point for the new sentence was set at 12 years imprisonment, with a 5% discount for the guilty plea, resulting in a head sentence of 11 years and 4 months. Special circumstances were considered, including the need for a longer period of supervision. The final sentence imposed was 11 years and 4 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years.

Orders