R v Woodford

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Brisbane	C.A. No. 140 of 1996
[R. v. Woodford]

THE QUEEN

JASON ANTHONY BROOK WOODFORD

(Applicant)

___________________________________________________________________________

Derrington J. Mackenzie J.

White J.

___________________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 1 August, 1996
Further reasons for Judgment delivered 16 August, 1996

___________________________________________________________________________

FURTHER REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

__________________________________________________________________________

Counsel:	Mr J. Griffin QC, with him Mr C. Wilson for the applicant. Mrs L. Clare for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Darvalls for the applicant. Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.
Hearing date:	1 August 1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Brisbane	C.A. No. 140 of 1996
Before Derrington J.

Mackenzie J.
White J.

[R. v. Woodford]

THE QUEEN

JASON ANTHONY BROOK WOODFORD

(Applicant)

FURTHER REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment Delivered 1 August 1996

Further Reasons Delivered 16 August 1996

When delivering ex tempore reasons in this matter, passing reference was made to R. v.

Bitossi. Since delivering the reasons the court has become aware that the details relating to the

case in the schedule of sentences for grievous bodily harm presented to the court by the Crown

are erroneous. The sentence of 7 years 4 months shown in the schedule was imposed for a

conviction for attempted murder. The count of grievous bodily harm of which Bitossi was also

convicted attracted a sentence of 5 years 4 months. In each instance about 8 months of pre-trial

custody had been taken into account. In the schedule, it was shown as one of 3 cases where a

sentence of between 7 and 8 years had been imposed for grievous bodily harm.

Although it is apparent from the ex tempore reasons that it is so, the court wishes to

record that the proposition being developed in the relevant passage of the judgment was that the

range of sentences for grievous bodily harm included cases where a higher sentence than the 6

years imposed on the applicant had been imposed. It was the fact that sentences in excess of

that imposed on the applicant could be found, not the precise level of sentence attributed to R. v. Bitossi in the schedule which was central to that part of the court's reasons. The ultimate

decision that the sentence was not manifestly excessive reflected the court's view that the

sentence was within the proper range of sentencing discretion.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court of Queensland heard an appeal by Jason Anthony Brook Woodford against his sentence. Woodford was appealing against the severity of the sentence imposed on him for grievous bodily harm. The appeal was presided over by Derrington J., Mackenzie J., and White J. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence imposed on Woodford was manifestly excessive and whether it was outside the range of sentences typically imposed for similar offences.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Woodford was manifestly excessive and therefore unjust. The court needed to consider the range of sentences that could be imposed for grievous bodily harm and whether the sentence in this case fell within that range. The court also had to assess whether the sentence took into account all relevant mitigating factors and whether it was proportionate to the offence committed.

The court examined the sentencing schedule provided by the Crown and noted an error regarding the sentence imposed in R. v. Bitossi. The court clarified that the sentence for grievous bodily harm in that case was actually 5 years 4 months, not 7 years 4 months as initially stated. Despite this error, the court emphasised that its decision was based on the overall range of sentences and not on the specific details of the erroneous case. The court found that the sentence imposed on Woodford was within the proper range of sentencing discretion and was not manifestly excessive. This conclusion was based on the court's view that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and took into account all relevant mitigating factors.

The court upheld the sentence imposed on Woodford, finding it not to be manifestly excessive. The appeal was therefore dismissed. The final orders confirmed the sentence imposed on Woodford, reflecting the court's view that it was within the appropriate range for the offence committed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established