Legal Research
Cases
R v Woods

R v Woods

Case [2016] QCA 310 25 November 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Woods [2016] QCA 310

PARTIES:

R
v
WOODS, Aaron Lee
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 133 of 2015
DC No 1764 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 22 May 2015; Date of Sentence: 3 June 2015

DELIVERED ON:

25 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 July 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and Philippides JJA and Burns J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Dismiss the appeal.

2. Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury and convicted of entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence (count 1) and wounding (count 2) – where the appellant submits that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury in relation to circumstantial evidence – where the appellant further submits that the trial judge merely repeated conventional directions about reasonable doubt without directing the jury that if there was any reasonable possibility consistent with innocence it was the jury’s duty to acquit the defendant – whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury and convicted of entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence (count 1) and wounding (count 2) – where the appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 10 years on count 1 and six years on count 2 – where the appellant applies for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed for counts 1 and 2 – where the appellant submits that the sentences imposed are manifestly excessive – where the respondent submits that 10 years imprisonment was an appropriate sentence for the criminality of both counts – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury and convicted of entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence (count 1) and wounding (count 2) – where the appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 10 years on count 1 and six years on count 2 – where those terms of imprisonment were made cumulative upon a sentence of three years imprisonment which had been imposed for 49 other offences – where the appellant contends that the sentencing judge erred by improperly considering the issue of totality – where the appellant submits that the sentencing judge misapplied the totality principle by inflating the sentence for count 1 to take into…

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 [2016] QCA 310
Case: [2016] QCA 310
Decision Date: 25 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Woods, the appellant contested his convictions and sentences for entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence and wounding, following a jury trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in the directions given to the jury, particularly regarding the handling of circumstantial evidence and the application of the concept of reasonable doubt. Additionally, the appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentences imposed, arguing that they were manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had misapplied the principle of totality.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing whether the trial judge's directions to the jury contained any errors that could have influenced the verdict unjustifiably. The court also had to consider whether the sentences imposed were excessively severe and whether the sentencing judge had acted on an incorrect principle in determining the terms of imprisonment. The appellant's arguments centered on the idea that the sentences were disproportionate to the crimes committed, and that the judge had failed to properly apply the principle of totality when considering the cumulative effect of the sentences.

The court meticulously reviewed the trial judge's directions to the jury and found no substantive errors that would warrant a new trial. The court held that the judge had adequately instructed the jury on the principles of circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the sentencing judge had not misapplied the principle of totality and that the sentences were within the appropriate range for the offences committed. The court was satisfied that the totality of the sentences, including those for the 49 other offences, was proportionate to the gravity of the crimes.

The court dismissed the appeal against the convictions and refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentences. The court's decision upheld the original findings and sentences, thereby concluding that the appellant's arguments did not substantiate a miscarriage of justice or an error in the sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Dismiss the appeal.

2. Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

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 Woods [2016] QCA 310

Most Recent Citation

R v Bahcehan [2019] QCA 278

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

R v Kampf
[2021] QCA 47 Para 2

…was justified by the scale of trafficking offence in Orchard and that being the second occasion of like offending on parole.” [40][2016] QCA 310 (footnote references omitted).…
R v Bahcehan
[2019] QCA 278 Para 5

…ive years was within the proper exercise of discretion, accepting that it was a moderated head sentence.[42] [42] R v Devon [2004] QCA 216; R v Woods [2016] QCA 310; and R v Hill [2017] QCA 177.…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 17 of 17 shown

R v Holder
[2019] SASCFC 73 Para 1

…n of the need to ensure no infringement of the totality principle in the cumulative sentence the sentencing judge imposed. [34][1983] 3 NSWLR 245 at 260; whether that view is correct is not in issue in this appeal.…
R v Knight
[2016] SASCFC 40 Para 1

…er it was too much”. [30](1988) 166 CLR 59 at 62-63 (Wilson, Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ). [31](1979), 2nd ed, pp 56 – 57. [32](1981) 26 SASR 573 at 576. [33](1972) 56 Cr App R 594 at 596.…
R v Parker
[2015] QCA 181 Para 1

…cking offence in Orchard and that being the second occasion of like offending on parole. [19][2005] QCA 141 at [26]. [20][2002] QCA 19. [21][2015] QCA 181 at [44].…
R v Woods
[2014] QCA 341

…5, cited R v Parker [2015] QCA 181, cited R v Slade [2003] QCA 191, cited R v Woods [2014] QCA 341, related COUNSEL: S G Bain for the appellant/applicant D L Meredith for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent…
R v Lovell
[2012] QCA 43

…8.Such a practical approach to sentencing is, in my view, also consistent with the observations of the Court of Appeal in R v Lovell [2012] QCA 43, especially at paragraph 64. 9.I also indicate that in arriving at the sentence, and structuring the sentence as I have, I have not made a serious violent offence dec…
R v Derks
[2011] QCA 295

…ffence order, might also have been possible, and might be considered as suitable and consistent with the approach of the Court of Appeal in R v Derks [2011] QCA 295 at paragraph 26. 10.Ultimately, it is my view that the approach I have adopted of imposing the heavier sentence on the objectively less serious offen…
R v Orchard
[2005] QCA 141 Para 1

…hat it was justified by the scale of the trafficking offence in Orchard and that being the second occasion of like offending on parole. [19][2005] QCA 141 at [26]. [20][2002] QCA 19. [21][2015] QCA 181 at [44].…
R v Devon
[2004] QCA 216 Para 1

…v Curley [14] indicate that a wounding offence of this nature should attract a sentence which is no more severe than four years imprisonment. [13][2004] QCA 216. [14][2002] QCA 140.…
R v Slade
[2003] QCA 191 Para 1

…or the criminality in both counts, having regard to R v Slade ,[24] R v Whelan ,[25] and R v Jackson .[26] [22][2000] QCA 411. [23][2001] QCA 55. [24][2003] QCA 191. [25][1998] QCA 151. [26][1998] QCA 265.…
R v Curley
[2002] QCA 140 Para 1

…te that a wounding offence of this nature should attract a sentence which is no more severe than four years imprisonment. [13][2004] QCA 216. [14][2002] QCA 140.…
R v DeSalvo
[2002] QCA 63 Para 1

…n and his Honour’s conclusion in that case that the criminal record of the offender did not afford a basis for a declaration. [16] R v De Salvo [2002] QCA 63 at [15] (Williams JA); R v McDougall & Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87 at [19]. [17]As was said of manslaughter in De Salvo at [9]. [18]At [10].…
R v Keating
[2002] QCA 19 Para 1

…scale of the trafficking offence in Orchard and that being the second occasion of like offending on parole. [19][2005] QCA 141 at [26]. [20][2002] QCA 19. [21][2015] QCA 181 at [44].…
R v Maguire
[2001] QCA 55 Para 1

…ropriate sentence for the criminality in both counts, having regard to R v Slade ,[24] R v Whelan ,[25] and R v Jackson .[26] [22][2000] QCA 411. [23][2001] QCA 55. [24][2003] QCA 191. [25][1998] QCA 151. [26][1998] QCA 265.…
R v Thomas
[2000] QCA 411 Para 1

…risonment was an appropriate sentence for the criminality in both counts, having regard to R v Slade ,[24] R v Whelan ,[25] and R v Jackson .[26] [22][2000] QCA 411. [23][2001] QCA 55. [24][2003] QCA 191. [25][1998] QCA 151. [26][1998] QCA 265.…
R v Jackson
[1998] QCA 265 Para 1

…g regard to R v Slade ,[24] R v Whelan ,[25] and R v Jackson .[26] [22][2000] QCA 411. [23][2001] QCA 55. [24][2003] QCA 191. [25][1998] QCA 151. [26][1998] QCA 265.…
R v Whelan
[1998] QCA 151 Para 1

…n both counts, having regard to R v Slade ,[24] R v Whelan ,[25] and R v Jackson .[26] [22][2000] QCA 411. [23][2001] QCA 55. [24][2003] QCA 191. [25][1998] QCA 151. [26][1998] QCA 265.…
Mill v The Queen
[1988] HCA 70

…– whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited R v Curley [2002] QCA 140, cited R v De Salvo (2002) 127 A Crim R 229; [2002] QCA 63, cited R v Devon [2004] QCA 216, cited R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245, cited R v Keating [2002] QCA 19, cited R v Maguire [2…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

CITATION:	R v Woods [2016] QCA 310
PARTIES:	R v WOODS, Aaron Lee (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 133 of 2015 DC No 1764 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 22 May 2015; Date of Sentence: 3 June 2015
DELIVERED ON:	25 November 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 July 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser and Philippides JJA and Burns J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Dismiss the appeal. 2. Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury and convicted of entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence (count 1) and wounding (count 2) – where the appellant submits that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury in relation to circumstantial evidence – where the appellant further submits that the trial judge merely repeated conventional directions about reasonable doubt without directing the jury that if there was any reasonable possibility consistent with innocence it was the jury’s duty to acquit the defendant – whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury and convicted of entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence (count 1) and wounding (count 2) – where the appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 10 years on count 1 and six years on count 2 – where the appellant applies for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed for counts 1 and 2 – where the appellant submits that the sentences imposed are manifestly excessive – where the respondent submits that 10 years imprisonment was an appropriate sentence for the criminality of both counts – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the appellant was found guilty by a jury and convicted of entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence (count 1) and wounding (count 2) – where the appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 10 years on count 1 and six years on count 2 – where those terms of imprisonment were made cumulative upon a sentence of three years imprisonment which had been imposed for 49 other offences – where the appellant contends that the sentencing judge erred by improperly considering the issue of totality – where the appellant submits that the sentencing judge misapplied the totality principle by inflating the sentence for count 1 to take into…