R v Woods - [2017] ACTSC 17

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Woods
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 17
Hearing Date:	17 October 2016; 25 January 2017
DecisionDate:	25 January 2017
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [10]-[11]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – offences against the person – culpable driving of motor vehicle – causing grievous bodily harm – high concentration of alcohol – licence disqualification – terms of imprisonment – served by way of Intensive Corrections Order – Community Service.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 42 Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT) s 62(1)(a)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Nathan Woods (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr T Hickey (Crown) Mr J Sarbharwal (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Prail Lawyers (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 133 of 2016

BURNS J:

Nathan Woods, you appear before me today for sentence with respect to one charge of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm. A Statement of Facts was tendered by consent at the sentence hearing on 17 October 2016. I will not recite the facts as set out in that Statement of Facts.

It is sufficient to note that on 21 February 2016 you drove your vehicle with a high concentration of alcohol in your blood and at an excessive speed, which caused a collision resulting in grievous bodily harm to a passenger in the vehicle, Alex McCready. Mr McCready, who was a long-term friend of yours, suffered a lacerated and broken left ring finger and also sustained significant damage to his right eye. The maximum penalty for the offence of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm is 10 years imprisonment. The relevant disqualification period pursuant to s 62(1)(a) of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT) is six months or if the court orders a longer period, then that longer period.

I take into account your plea of guilty with respect to this charge and I accept that that was an early plea of guilty. I will reduce the otherwise appropriate sentence by 25 per cent in order to reflect your plea of guilty.

I take into account the reading which was a reading of 0.129 grams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, which was a level 3 reading for the purposes of offences under the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT). I also take into account the report of Dr Jamie Cox, a psychologist, which was tendered at the sentencing hearing and the various testimonials that were also tendered on your behalf. I further take into account without here reciting the contents of the victim impact statement which was prepared by Mr McCready.

Clearly, this is an offence which warrants a term of imprisonment. Driving with a reading of 0.129, and particularly driving at speed, is a very reckless act and in this particular case it has led to significant injuries to another member of the community which…

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 [2017] ACTSC 17
Case: [2017] ACTSC 17
Decision Date: 25 January 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the matter of R v Woods involved the defendant, Woods, who was charged with culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm and related offences. The incident in question occurred when Woods, with a high blood alcohol concentration, caused a motor vehicle accident, resulting in significant injuries to another person. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account the severity of the offence, the level of culpability, and the defendant's personal circumstances.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate level of penalty for the offence of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm, the necessity of licence disqualification, and the suitability of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) as a form of imprisonment. The court also had to consider the potential impact of a custodial sentence on the defendant's personal situation, including his employment and family responsibilities.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the gravity of the offence and the significant harm caused to the victim. The court found Woods to be highly culpable due to his elevated blood alcohol level at the time of the incident. Considering the defendant's background, including his otherwise clean criminal record and his expressed remorse, the court determined that a sentence combining an ICO with a community service order was appropriate. The court imposed a term of imprisonment to be served through an ICO, supplemented by a requirement to perform 200 hours of community service. This approach aimed to address both the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of the sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [10]-[11]

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.