R v Wood - [1994] QCA 544

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 544

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 429 of 1994.

Brisbane

[R v. Wood]

T H E Q U E E N
v.
DAVID JOHN WOOD

(Appellant)

_____________________________________________________________________

Fitzgerald P.
Pincus J.A.
McPherson J.A.

_____________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 14/12/1994

Judgment of the Court
_____________________________________________________________________

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED. RECOMMENDATION OF TRIAL JUDGE WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT OF RELEASE ON PAROLE DELETED.
______________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Rape - 7 years with no recommendation for parole - applicant previous history of physical violence towards former defacto and deprivation of her liberty - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether direction of trial judge that psychological and psychiatric evidence should be taken into account before admitting applicant to parole could be sustained.

Counsel:Applicant appeared on own behalf.
Ms L Clare for the respondent.

Solicitors:Applicant appeared on own behalf.
Director of Prosecutions for the respondent.

Hearing date:30 November 1994.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 14/12/1994

This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant was convicted of rape in the District Court and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. The judge also recommended that the relevant authorities satisfy themselves "carefully, having regard to your history of violence towards women, whether you are and remain a risk to the community before you should be released" on parole. His Honour added that he considered "that that should be on very firm psychological and psychiatric evidence".

The applicant, who was 21 years old at the date of the offence, met the complainant a week before the rape, at a tavern, where she danced and otherwise associated with him. She gave him her phone number on that evening and subsequently he phoned her with the idea of visiting her at her flat; she did not agree to that. A few days later he phoned her again and the two had a discussion, and then on the Thursday before the rape (which occurred on a Saturday) there was a further telephone conversation in which it was arranged that the two would go out together. On the Friday night they did so and the complainant and the applicant went to a restaurant bar for some time, and then to a tavern. At each place they danced and drank together and also socialised with other people. According to the complainant's recollection they left for the complainant's flat about 3.15 a.m. The applicant asked the complainant if it would be alright if he came with her "to see that I got home OK" and that his friends would pick him up later. While at the flat, and during a period when, according to the complainant's understanding, they were waiting for his friends to arrive, they lay down together on a bed fully clothed. The complainant said she did this because she was tired, and explained the applicant's presence on the bed with her by saying that she knew his friends would be coming soon…

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 [1994] QCA 544
Case: [1994] QCA 544
Decision Date: 14 December 1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this case was brought by David John Wood against his sentence for rape, which was determined to be 7 years imprisonment with no recommendation for parole. Wood had previously been convicted of various offences, including those against his former de facto partner, which included physical violence and deprivation of her liberty. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge's recommendation that psychological and psychiatric evidence be considered before Wood could be released on parole was sustainable.

The Court of Appeal considered the severity of Wood's crime, his prior history of violence towards women, and the lack of remorse shown. The Court noted that the trial judge had rightly taken into account Wood's history when determining the sentence. The Court also examined the trial judge's recommendation regarding parole, which required careful consideration of psychological and psychiatric evidence. The Court of Appeal determined that while such evidence could be informative, it was not a prerequisite for parole consideration. It was not appropriate to impose such stringent conditions on the parole authorities, given the nature of Wood's crimes and history.

The Court of Appeal concluded that while the sentence of 7 years imprisonment was appropriate, the trial judge's recommendation regarding parole should be deleted. The court held that the matter of parole should be considered by the relevant authorities based on the available information without the specific recommendation from the trial judge. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was ultimately refused, but with the condition that the parole recommendation was to be disregarded.

Orders