Legal Research
Cases
R v Woodland

R v Woodland

Case [2001] NSWSC 416 25 May 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Woodland [2001] NSWSC 416 revised - 29/05/2001

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70060/00

HEARING DATE(S): 26/3/01; 18/05/01; 25/05/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 May 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Dale Mark Woodland

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL at 1

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Supreme Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Ms C. Davenport for Prisoner
Mr. W. Dawe QC for Crown

SOLICITORS: G. Hovan
S E O'Connor

DECISION: Sentence: Imprisonment 7 years 9 months from 26/3/01 to expire 25/12/08; Fixed non parole period 4 years 9 months from 26/03/01 to expire 25/12/05; Earliest date for which eligible for release on parole 26/12/05; I will make a recommendation that the prisoner serve his sentence on protection for such period as may be assessed appropriate for his own safety.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

WOOD CJ at CL

FRIDAY 25 MAY 2001

70060/00 - REGINA v DALE MARK WOODLAND

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 26 March 2001, the prisoner pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his two year old son Jason, occurring on 8 July 1999. That plea was accepted in full satisfaction of an indictment charging him with murder. It may be taken as timely, having regard to the circumstance that it was offered as soon as it became clear that the Crown would accept a plea to the lesser charge.

2 The deceased, Jason, was born on 17 May 1997. At the time his mother, Sarah Eadie, was aged almost eighteen years, having become pregnant during her last year at school, and the prisoner was a little older. Following the birth, the three of them lived in a bedroom which she had occupied at the home of her parents at West Gosford.

3 In June 1997, when Jason was five weeks old, he was removed from his parents by the Department of Community Services, when it became apparent that he had suffered non-accidental head injuries comprising acute and chronic subdural haematomas and bilateral retinal haemorrhages, consistent with shaken baby syndrome. The injuries were such as to require the insertion of a shunt to drain off the intracranial swelling.

4 The child was later placed in the care of the prisoner's mother. In May 1998, a two year wardship order was made with provision for the parents to have access to him under the supervision of the maternal grandparents with a view to his later restoration.

5 Over the succeeding period, there was some limited counselling, although it appears from the material placed before me, including the ERISP conducted with the prisoner, that his participation was limited and that he found the few sessions which he attended to be of no value. During this period, Jason's mother, Sarah, admitted to having caused the shaking injuries to the baby in 1997, although whether that was the case or not is perhaps questionable, since there is some suggestion that it was necessary for one or other of the parents to make that admission…

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 Woodland

Details

AGLC: R v Woodland [2001] NSWSC 416
Case: [2001] NSWSC 416
Decision Date: 25 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Woodland was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with the decision rendered by Wood CJ at CL on 25 May 2001. Dale Mark Woodland was convicted of manslaughter following the death of his two-year-old son, Jason, on 8 July 1999. Woodland pleaded guilty to the charge, which was accepted by the Crown in satisfaction of a murder indictment. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the manslaughter, considering the circumstances of the case, the offender's background, and the objective and subjective factors relevant to the sentencing process.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included the degree of the offender's criminal responsibility, the need for a deterrent sentence, and the appropriate weight to be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, such as his age, immaturity, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the vulnerability of the victim, a young child, and the role of the Department of Community Services (DOCS) in the supervision and monitoring of the family.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted the tragic history of the case, including the earlier non-accidental injuries suffered by Jason when he was five weeks old, and the subsequent restoration of Jason to his parents' care despite identified risks. The court found that the primary cause of Jason's death was the impact of his head against a refrigerator door, which was the result of Woodland's violent act. The court emphasized the need for deterrent sentences in cases involving the killing of young children by their carers due to the dependency and vulnerability of the victims.

After considering the offender's background, including his troubled upbringing and lack of effective role models, the court found that while the offender's immaturity and stressful situation contributed to his criminality, they did not excuse his violent actions. The court also took into account the offender's guilty plea, his remorse, and his efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody. The sentence imposed was seven years and nine months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and nine months. The court recommended that the offender serve his sentence on protection for his own safety and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to DOCS for their review of the case.

Orders