R v Woods - [2009] NTCCA 2

The Queen v Woods [2009] NTCCA 2

PARTIES: THE QUEEN

v
GRAYDON WOODS

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CCA 1 of 2009 (20800571)
DELIVERED:  23 March 2009
HEARING DATES:  13 March 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN (BR) CJ, MILDREN AND RILEY JJ
APPEALED FROM:  ANGEL J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – Criminal appeal from Supreme Court – conspiracy to commit drug offences – pseudoephedrine – powerful matters of mitigation – recognizance release order – order suspending entirety of head sentence – difference between non-parole period and recognizance release order – time for release under recognizance to be determined by reference to particular circumstances not by reference to a norm – sentence manifestly inadequate – mercy – Appeal dismissed
R v Martinsen [2003] NSWCCA 144, considered
R v Bernier (1998) 102 A Crim R 44, distinguished

R v CAK & CAL; ex parte Commonwealth DPP [2009] QCA 23, doubted

CRIMINAL LAW – CROWN APPEAL – Crown appeal only brought in the rare and exceptional case – exercise of sentencing discretion not disturbed on appeal unless error in that exercise is shown – presumption that there is no error – where appellate court finds error recognition will be given to the element of double jeopardy in re-sentencing – sentence manifestly inadequate – unnecessary for court to interfere further
R v Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561, applied
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295, followed
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:G Braddock SC
Respondent:  S Cox QC
Solicitors:
Appellant:Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent:  Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Ril0902
Number of pages:  14

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Woods [2009] NTCCA 2

No CCA 1 of 2009 (20800571)
BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND:

GRAYDON WOODS

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ, MILDREN AND RILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 23 March 2009)
Martin (BR) CJ:

I agree that the appeal should be dismissed and with the reasons of Riley J. The matters of mitigation were powerful. In particular, the character references from persons who knew of the offending were remarkable. They paint a clear picture of an ordinary and unworldly 59 year old family person of otherwise exemplary character who reluctantly became entangled in the criminal enterprise. In these circumstances it is appropriate for this Court to send the message that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, but exercise mercy and decline to interfere.
Mildren J:
I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Riley J and Martin CJ.
Riley J:
This is a Crown appeal against sentence.
On 12 December 2008, following his plea of guilty, the respondent was convicted of the offence of conspiracy to commit an offence against Commonwealth law, namely, importing into Australia a commercial quantity of pseudoephedrine, a border controlled precursor. He was sentenced…

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 Woods

Details

AGLC: R v Woods [2009] NTCCA 2
Case: [2009] NTCCA 2
Decision Date: 23 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v Woods* concerned an appeal by the Crown against a sentence imposed by a judge in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The respondent, Woods, had pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm. The Crown contended that the sentence of 18 months imprisonment, suspended after 6 months, was manifestly inadequate.

The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the sentencing judge had erred in principle by imposing a suspended sentence, and if so, what was the appropriate sentence to be substituted. The Court was required to consider the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the offending, the personal circumstances of the offender, and the sentencing objectives of punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentencing judge had placed undue emphasis on the respondent's personal circumstances and had not given sufficient weight to the objective seriousness of the aggravated assault. The judges noted that the victim had suffered significant injuries and that the use of a weapon, even if not directly applied, escalated the seriousness of the offence. Applying the principles of sentencing, particularly the need for general deterrence in cases of violent offending, the Court determined that a fully suspended sentence was inappropriate.

Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, quashed the original sentence, and imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment, with no part suspended.

Orders