R v Wood - [1994] QCA 297

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 297

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 184 of 1994

Brisbane
[R. v. Wood]

BETWEEN

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

(Applicant)
McPherson J.A.
Pincus J.A.
Ambrose J.

Judgment delivered 16/08/94
Joint reasons for judgment by McPherson J.A. and Ambrose J.
Separate reasons of Pincus J.A. concurring as to the order.

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED. APPEAL ALLOWED. SET ASIDE THE ORDER IMPOSED BELOW SUSPENDING THE SENTENCE FOR 5 YEARS; IN LIEU RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANT BE CONSIDERED FOR PAROLE AFTER SERVING SIX MONTHS OF THE SENTENCE IMPOSED.

CATCHWORDSCRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - Deprivation of liberty and UUMV - Whether 2 years imprisonment suspended after 6 months for 5 years excessive - Girlfriend forced into car passenger seat and driven around - Serious nature of offences considered - Domestic violence orders previously ignored by applicant - Extensive criminal record - On probation at time of offence - 20 years old at time of offence.

Counsel:Applicant in person
P. Callaghan for Crown

Solicitors:Director of Prosecutions for the Crown

Hearing Date:3 August 1994

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A. & AMBROSE J.
Judgment delivered the Sixteenth day of August 1994

This is an application by David John Wood for leave to appeal against a sentence of 2 years, which was ordered to be suspended after serving six months of it. The sentence was imposed at the applicant's trial in the District Court on an indictment containing a total of six counts, of which he was found guilty of two. They were that on 3 December 1992 he unlawfully used a Holden sedan belonging to Kylie Ellsworth and that he deprived her of her liberty by driving her away in that vehicle.

The particular incident resulting in those charges was the culmination of a series of events arising out of a relationship between the applicant and Kylie during which they had lived together for some three years before the offences were committed. The relationship ended in September 1992 but the applicant refused to accept this state of affairs and, according to Kylie, would telephone her at her mother's house where she lived on occasions up to 20 times a day.

The two offences for which he was sentenced were committed on 3 December 1992 when Kylie was driving her car on her way to work that morning. She stopped to go to a shop. The applicant was following her car in his utility and he stopped it behind her vehicle. He got out, went to her vehicle, opened the door, forced her into the front passenger seat, and then drove the car with her in it to Woody Point, where an argument ensued. Afterwards he drove her back to where he had first accosted her that morning.

Deprivation of liberty, particularly of a person from a public place, is an offence that must always be viewed seriously. That, in our opinion, remains so even if - perhaps particularly…

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 297
Case: [1994] QCA 297
Decision Date: 16/08/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v. David John Wood, the applicant sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the District Court. The District Court had sentenced Wood to 2 years imprisonment, to be suspended after serving 6 months, for offences of unlawfully using a vehicle and depriving the owner of her liberty. The Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether this sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offences and Wood's history of ignoring court orders. The Court considered the seriousness of the offences, particularly the deprivation of liberty, which must always be viewed seriously, and the fact that this was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of behaviour that had been previously addressed by domestic violence orders and probation. Wood's criminal record, which included multiple breaches of probation and domestic violence orders, was also a significant factor. The Court of Appeal concluded that while the sentence was severe, the period of suspension was excessively long, potentially leading to undue severity if Wood were to commit a further offence during the suspension period. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and recommended that Wood be considered for parole after serving six months of the sentence imposed. This decision aimed to provide a necessary restraint on Wood's future conduct while avoiding an overly harsh penalty.

Orders