R v Wood No. Sccrm-02-370 - [2003] SASC 213

R v WOOD
[2003] SASC 213
Criminal

PERRY J. The defendant, Paul John Wood, was tried in the District Court before a judge and jury on an information which alleged three counts of rape, all arising out of an incident which occurred on 6 June 2001.
On the evening of that day, the victim, a 23 year old woman employed by an escort agency, attended at the defendant’s city apartment. Without warning, as she entered the premises, he attacked her, using what she thought was a knife but which was very likely a bottle opener or corkscrew with a sharp metal tip. He forced her to remove her clothes and then proceeded to cause her to perform an act of fellatio on him (count 1), following which he engaged in penile vaginal sexual intercourse (count 2) and finally he performed an act of cunnilingus upon her (count 3).
Following the conviction, the DPP applied pursuant to s 23(2) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (“the Act”) for an order that the defendant be remanded in custody for sentence before the Supreme Court. No doubt a factor taken into account by the DPP in making the application is that the defendant had been convicted of rape on two previous occasions. I will refer to the circumstances of those rapes in due course.
On 23 October 2002, a District Court judge made the order sought.
I mention in passing that the procedure which led to the order of referral to this Court was initiated by a formal application by the DPP, accompanied by a substantial volume of material relating to the defendant’s antecedents and other material said to be relevant to the application. In fact, s 23(2) does not refer to the making of an application as a prerequisite to the making of an order under the section, and does not confer on the DPP any particular status or standing to apply for the exercise of the powers conferred by the section. Section 23(2) simply provides that:
“... the court may, if of the opinion that the powers under this section should be exercised in relation to the defendant, remand the defendant in custody or on bail to appear for sentence before the Supreme Court.”
However, no objection was taken to the procedure which was followed.
It is, in any event, a convenient procedure.
Importantly for present purposes, there was no objection by counsel for the defendant to the District Court dealing with the matter without formal proof of the evidentiary material attached to the DPP’s application. Neither did the defendant object to this Court having regard to that material without further proof.
In consequence of the order made by the District Court, the matter came before me on 18 November 2002. I then directed, pursuant to s 23(3) of the Act, that two medical practitioners inquire into the defendant’s mental condition and report to the Court as to whether the defendant is incapable of controlling his sexual instincts.
I later…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Wood No. Sccrm-02-370 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] SASC 213
Decision Date: 10 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wood, before the Supreme Court of South Australia, involves a defendant who has a history of drug abuse, psychological issues, and a violent upbringing. His criminal history includes a serious incident of rape committed in 1992. The defendant is now facing sentencing for his criminal activities. The court must consider his background and the nature of the offence to determine an appropriate sentence that balances the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

The primary legal issue before the court is to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant that reflects the seriousness of his criminal conduct while also considering his personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. The court must balance the need for deterrence and retribution with the possibility of the defendant being reformed and reintegrated into society. The court also needs to assess whether there are any mitigating factors that could influence the sentence, such as the defendant's troubled upbringing and history of mental health issues.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the defendant's troubled upbringing, his history of drug abuse, and his psychological issues. The court recognised the need for rehabilitation to reduce the risk of re-offending, both for the defendant's sake and for public safety. The court concluded that an immediate start to treatment while in custody was crucial. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment with a focus on providing treatment to address the defendant's underlying issues, aiming to reduce the likelihood of future criminal behaviour.

The court ordered that the defendant be given appropriate treatment while in custody to address his drug abuse, psychological issues, and other factors contributing to his offending behaviour. The treatment is to commence as soon as possible to maximise the chances of rehabilitation and to reduce the risk of re-offending upon his release.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

In order to determine the application, it is necessary to refer to some matters of background, including the defendant’s history of offending.Background The defendant is aged 31 years (date of birth 1 September 1971). He was born in Melbourne, Victoria. The defendant describes his father as a “violent alcoholic” who would frequently physically abuse him and his mother. The defendant was given the impression that his conception was a “mistake” and that he was not wanted. He has no siblings. His parents separated in 1982, when the defendant was aged 11. For a time after his parents separated, he moved between each parent. This proved to be a very unstable situation. He began running away and truanting from school. The defendant attended a number of secondary schools, but his rebellious disposition eventually resulted in him being expelled from school at the age of 15. At that stage he had only completed half way through year 9 level. After leaving school he began living in hostels or living on the streets. He obtained his first job working for a supermarket, stocking fruit and vegetables. While so employed he had what has been described as his first psychological breakdown. This was at the age of 16, when he was admitted to hospital following an attempted suicide by cutting his wrists. There is also a report that on another occasion he attempted suicide by climbing into an electricity sub-station. It appears that the defendant was not diagnosed as psychotic, but opinions were expressed to the effect that his behaviour was attributable to an “adolescent crisis” in the context of long-term family disharmony and rejection. The defendant has a long history of drug abuse dating back to his early teens. He has rarely had any long-term relationships with females. His longest relationship was with a young woman whom he met in Victoria when he was aged 18 years. They were together for some two years. That relationship came to a dramatic end on 23 July 1992, when he raped her. I will now deal more specifically with the circumstances of that incident.(a) Rape Offence committed on 23 July 1992 The defendant had been living with the victim, who was some two years older than him, for something between eighteen months and two years before the offence occurred. According to the victim, she had broken off the relationship about six months before the rape, but it seems that the defendant did not accept that. He continued living on her parents’ property in a caravan outside the house. He remained jealous of her socialising with other men. The victim felt threatened, and on occasions declined opportunities to go out for fear of provoking the defendant. The offence occurred on a night when the victim’s parents were out of the house. When the victim returned from visiting a friend, she found the defendant sitting in the house. When she undressed in her bedroom to go to bed, he entered and threw her onto the bed. He gagged her with a tea towel and threatened her with a knife. She unsuccessfully tried to fight him off. He threatened to kill her. He then ripped her nightie off, at which stage she said she “gave in”. He placed his finger in her vagina and then penetrated her with his penis.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

PERRY J

Given that the defendant will eventually be released back into the community, it is obviously not only in his interests but in the interests of the public that he be given appropriate treatment while in gaol in the hope that this will lessen the risk of re-offending. Such treatment should commence from now or as soon as it can be provided, rather than from the expiration of the term of imprisonment which I propose to impose.JUDGMENT CITATIONSLISTED IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE IN JUDGMENT1. (1998) 71 SASR 109.2. Ibid 138-139.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: PERRY J

Full text does not contain this section.