Legal Research
Cases
R v Woodman

R v Woodman

Case [2009] QCA 197 17 July 2009

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Woodman [2009] QCA 197

PARTIES:

R
v
WOODMAN, Daniel Thomas
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 18 of 2009
DC No 150 of 2008
DC No 173 of 2008
DC No 174 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mount Isa

DELIVERED ON:

17 July 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – the applicant pleaded guilty to doing grievous bodily harm with intent and was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment – the applicant threw methylated spirits onto the complainant's face and arms and set her alight – the complainant suffered extensive physical and psychological injuries – the applicant had a significant criminal history, including offences of violence against the complainant – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the judge gave too much weight to the applicant's prior criminal history

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(4)

R v Holland [2008] QCA 200, discussed
R v Lyon [2006] QCA 146, discussed
R v Mitchell [2006] QCA 240, discussed
R v Wentworth [1996] QCA 534, discussed
R v Williams [2002] QCA 142, discussed
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited

COUNSEL:

J Henry SC for the applicant
J A Woolridge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: The applicant, Daniel Thomas Woodman, pleaded guilty in the District Court at Mount Isa on 8 December 2008 to doing grievous bodily harm with intent on 8 April 2008. The complainant was his partner. He was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment. He committed this offence during the operational period of a partially suspended sentence of two and a half years imprisonment, 16 months of which remained unserved. He was ordered to serve that 16 month period of imprisonment, but concurrently with the 11 year sentence. Woodman also pleaded guilty to breaching a domestic violence order on 11 November 2007 for which he was sentenced to 134 days concurrent imprisonment. He has applied for leave to appeal against his sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive in that the judge gave too much weight to his prior criminal history and failed to adequately discount the sentence for his early plea of guilty.

He has also appealed against his conviction. Although this appeal was not formally abandoned, the applicant's counsel informed the respondent's counsel that Woodman was only pursuing his application for leave to appeal against sentence. This is unsurprising in light…

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 Woodman

Details

AGLC: R v Woodman [2009] QCA 197
Case: [2009] QCA 197
Decision Date: 17 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the criminal appeal against the conviction and sentencing of Woodman, the applicant pleaded guilty to an offence of grievous bodily harm with intent, involving the act of throwing methylated spirits onto the complainant's face and arms and setting her alight, resulting in extensive physical and psychological injuries to the complainant. The case was heard in the higher court on appeal against both the conviction and the sentence imposed. The applicant, having a significant criminal history, including prior violent offences against the complainant, was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment. The applicant sought to appeal against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive and that the judge had given too much weight to the applicant's prior criminal history.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and if the judge had appropriately considered the applicant's prior criminal history in determining the sentence. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature of the offence and the level of harm caused, as well as the judge's alleged overemphasis on the applicant's prior criminal history. The court was required to assess the proportionality of the sentence and the relevance of the applicant's criminal history in the sentencing process.

The court held that the appeal against conviction was dismissed, as there was no basis to challenge the conviction. Regarding the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court considered the nature and severity of the offence, the harm caused to the complainant, and the applicant's significant criminal history. The judge appropriately balanced these factors in determining the sentence, and there was no evidence that the judge had given excessive weight to the applicant's prior criminal history. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

In summary, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court upheld the original sentence imposed on the applicant, finding it to be proportionate and appropriately balanced in light of the offence and the applicant's criminal history.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

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 Woodman [2009] QCA 197

Most Recent Citation

R v Woodman [2010] QCA 162

Cases citing this decision · 10 of 10 shown

Nydegger v The King
[2024] NSWCCA 232

…f R v Difford [2001] QCA 359 (attempted murder); R v Williams [2002] QCA 142 (causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so); R v Woodman [2009] QCA 197 (causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so). 51 The relevant act must be accompanied by intent to ‘burn maim disfigure disable, or do grievous bodily…
R v Lewis; Ex parte
[2022] QCA 14 Para 2

…cted the contention that a sentence of seven years was appropriate, describing that as “simply too low”. [9][2002] QCA 142. [10][2009] QCA 197. [11][1996] QCA 534.…
R v Spies
[2018] QCA 36 Para 40

…’s youth and efforts at rehabilitation and that his actions were committed without premeditation and while drunk. Leave to appeal was refused. [5][2009] QCA 197.…
R v Woodman
[2014] QCA 243

…o appeal against sentence was dismissed, as was the appeal against conviction which, although not formally abandoned, was not argued: see R v Woodman [2009] QCA 197. In 2010, the applicant sought an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. White JA, with whom the other members…
R v John
[2014] QCA 86 Para 1

…General .[18] The cases of R v Woodman [19] and R v Tevita [20] supported a sentence in this case of between 18 and 20 years. [18][2003] QCA 326. [19][2009] QCA 197. [20][2006] QCA 131.…
R v Woodman
[2013] QCA 359

…rmally dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence – see R v Woodman [2009] QCA 197. On 3 March 2010, the applicant filed a further application for leave to appeal against sentence and sought an extension of the time to make the application.…
R v BCF
[2012] QCA 87

…40, cited R v Riseley; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2009] QCA 285, considered R v SAV; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 328, considered R v Woodman [2009] QCA 197, distinguished COUNSEL: L D Reece for the applicant S Vasta for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (…
R v Hart
[2012] QCA 38 Para 1

…eferred additionally to R v Melissant [2003] QCA 122, R v Lyon [2006] QCA 146, R v Wilson [2001] QCA 215, R v Anderson [2004] QCA 287 and R v Woodman [2009] QCA 197. He has sought to draw detailed comparison and contrast between the circumstances of those cases and his own.…
R v Woodman
[2010] QCA 162 Para 1

…. It is very likely that he has received assistance in preparing his written material from someone who was unaware of this history. [2] R v Woodman [2009] QCA 197.…
R v Dinh
[2010] NSWCCA 74

…10] NSWCCA 49 Ibbs v The Queen [1987] HCA 46; 163 CLR 447 R v Tan [2007] NSWSC 684 R v Difford [2001] QCA 359 R v Williams [2002] QCA 142 R v Woodman [2009] QCA 197 R v SK and OZ [2001] NSWCCA 492) R v Ohanian (Moore ADCJ, unreported, 16 December 2002) R v Hickey (Blanch CJ, unreported, 4 August 2006) R v Scamaka…

View all 10 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 6 of 6 shown

R v Holland
[2008] QCA 200

…e judge gave too much weight to the applicant's prior criminal history Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(4) R v Holland [2008] QCA 200, discussed R v Lyon [2006] QCA 146, discussed R v Mitchell [2006] QCA 240, discussed R v Wentworth [1996] QCA 534, discussed R v Williams [2002] QCA 142, discussed Veen…
R v Mitchell
[2006] QCA 240

…alties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(4) R v Holland [2008] QCA 200, discussed R v Lyon [2006] QCA 146, discussed R v Mitchell [2006] QCA 240, discussed R v Wentworth [1996] QCA 534, discussed R v Williams [2002] QCA 142, discussed Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited COUNSEL: J Hen…
R v Lyon
[2006] QCA 146

…applicant's prior criminal history Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(4) R v Holland [2008] QCA 200, discussed R v Lyon [2006] QCA 146, discussed R v Mitchell [2006] QCA 240, discussed R v Wentworth [1996] QCA 534, discussed R v Williams [2002] QCA 142, discussed Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 4…
R v Williams
[2002] QCA 142 Para 1

…hment than in Williams was required because Woodman committed the present offence during the operational period of the earlier suspended sentence. [1][2002] QCA 142.…
R v Wentworth
[1996] QCA 534 Para 1

…y plea. Cases like R v Wentworth [2] supported a sentence of eight or nine years imprisonment, perhaps with a serious violent offence declaration. [2][1996] QCA 534.…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14

…cussed R v Wentworth [1996] QCA 534, discussed R v Williams [2002] QCA 142, discussed Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited COUNSEL: J Henry SC for the applicant J A Woolridge for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensl…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
9(4) 2 mentions (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Woodman [2009] QCA 197
PARTIES:	R v WOODMAN, Daniel Thomas (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 18 of 2009 DC No 150 of 2008 DC No 173 of 2008 DC No 174 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mount Isa
DELIVERED ON:	17 July 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 June 2009
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Cullinane J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed 2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – the applicant pleaded guilty to doing grievous bodily harm with intent and was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment – the applicant threw methylated spirits onto the complainant's face and arms and set her alight – the complainant suffered extensive physical and psychological injuries – the applicant had a significant criminal history, including offences of violence against the complainant – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the judge gave too much weight to the applicant's prior criminal history Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(4) R v Holland [2008] QCA 200, discussed R v Lyon [2006] QCA 146, discussed R v Mitchell [2006] QCA 240, discussed R v Wentworth [1996] QCA 534, discussed R v Williams [2002] QCA 142, discussed Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited
COUNSEL:	J Henry SC for the applicant J A Woolridge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent