R v Wood - [2005] NSWCCA 233

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Wood [2005] NSWCCA 233

FILE NUMBER(S):
2005/708

HEARING DATE(S): 22/06/2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 22/06/2005

PARTIES:
Regina v Florence June Wood

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ Hunt AJA Howie J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/0557

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hosking DCJ

COUNSEL:
G. Walsh - Crown
C. Jeffreys - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
Commonwealth DPP - Crown
Jeffreys & Associates - Applicant

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Sentence - Social Security fraud - short custodial sentences imposed - whether evidence of effect of sentence upon applicant's retarded daughter so exceptional as to require non-custodial sentences - no error in exercise of judge's discretion.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - s 29D
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) - s 135.1(5)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s 5(2)

DECISION:
Leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed. The sentence on the first count is to commence from today, 22 June 2005, and is to expire on 21 July 2005. The sentence for the second count is to commence on 22 July 2005 and is to expire on 21 August 2005. The sentences for the third and fourth counts are to commence on 22 August 2005 and are to expire on 21 September 2005.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2005/708
SPIGELMAN CJ
HUNT AJA
HOWIE J
WEDNESDAY 22 JUNE 2005

REGINA v FLORENCE JUNE WOOD

Judgment

HOWIE J: On 27 August 2004 the applicant appeared in the District Court before Hosking DCJ and adhered to her pleas of guilty made in the Local Court on the following charges:
Charge 1: Between about 22 December 1988 and 5 December 1992 at Gosford in the State of New South Wales did defraud the Department of Social Security, a department of the Commonwealth, in that she obtained a Widow’s Pension from that department in the name Florence June Elliott when in fact (and without disclosing that) she was a member of a couple legally married to Neville John Wood on 22 May 1977, in breach of s 29D Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
Charge 2: Between about 17 December 1992 and 30 June 1997 at Gosford in the State of New South Wales, did defraud the Department of Social Security, a department of the Commonwealth, in that she obtained an Age Pension from that department in the name Florence June Elliott when in (and without disclosing that) she was in receipt of an Age Pension from that department in the name Florence June Wood, in breach of s 29D Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
Charge 3: Between about 1 July 1997 and 23 May 2001 at Gosford in the State of New South Wales, did defraud the Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency, a public authority under the Commonwealth, in that she obtained an Age Pension from that agency in the name Florence June Elliott when in fact (and without disclosing that) she was in receipt of an Age Pension from that agency in…

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 [2005] NSWCCA 233
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 233
Decision Date: 22 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Wood was before the court where the defendant, Wood, had been found guilty of social security fraud. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Wood, with particular attention to the impact of a custodial sentence on Wood's intellectually disabled daughter. The case was heard in the relevant court of criminal jurisdiction.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the judge's discretion in sentencing was correctly exercised, particularly in light of the exceptional circumstances presented by the defendant's daughter. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence of the impact on the daughter was so exceptional as to require Wood to be sentenced to a non-custodial sentence.

The court examined the evidence regarding the daughter's condition and the impact of a custodial sentence on her. Despite acknowledging the exceptional nature of the circumstances, the court found that it was not an error for the judge to impose a short custodial sentence. The court held that the judge had correctly exercised their discretion, considering all relevant factors, including the nature of the offence and the need for deterrence. The court found no error in the judge's assessment and decision.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the sentence imposed by the trial judge, confirming that the judge had exercised their discretion appropriately in the circumstances.

Orders