R v Woods - [2014] QCA 341

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Woods [2014] QCA 341

PARTIES:

R
v
WOODS, Aaron Lee
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 4 of 2014
CA No 213 of 2014
DC No 1430 of 2013
DC No 1573 of 2013
DC No 1675 of 2013
DC No 1764 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 October 2014

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

Allow the appeal against conviction, set aside the (unlawfully wounding with intent to disfigure) on indictment number 1764 of 2013 and order a new trial upon those counts. with intent to commit an indictable offence) and count 2convictions and sentences on count 1 (entering a dwelling1.

Set aside the orders that the sentences imposed in respect of the other indictments are to be served concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment on count 1 on indictment number 1764 of 2013 but cumulatively upon the sentence of imprisonment with respect to count 2 of that indictment.2.

Otherwise confirm the sentences and orders, including under s 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) in respect of indictments 1430 of 2013, 1573 of 2013 and 1675 of 2013.the statements and declarations of presentence custody3.

Fix a parole release date at 24 November 2015.4.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence and wounding with intent to disfigure – where the appellant had said to police “You should know me, I’m the granny slasher”, and that statement was admitted at trial as an admission – whether that evidence was not capable of amounting to an admission and was therefore inadmissible

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the appellant was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for wounding with intent to disfigure and to three years imprisonment for 49 other offences, to be served cumulatively – where the primary judge made a serious violent offence declaration, and did not set a parole eligibility date, being informed it would accrue after 80 per cent of the period of 17 years imprisonment had been served – where the Court has vacated the conviction upon which the 14 years period of imprisonment was based, and so it is necessary to grant leave to appeal against sentence – whether the sentence of three years imprisonment with parole release after 50 per cent for the other 49 offences should be disturbed

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 185
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(3)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 160B, Sch 1

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 [2014] QCA 341
Case: [2014] QCA 341
Decision Date: 19 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Woods, the appellant was found guilty of entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence and of wounding with intent to disfigure. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence. The appellant's statement to police, “You should know me, I’m the granny slasher”, was admitted at trial as an admission, which he argued should not have been admitted. The appellant also challenged the sentence of 14 years imprisonment for the wounding offence and the cumulative sentencing for other offences.

The court examined whether the statement made by the appellant to police was properly admitted as an admission and whether it should have been excluded. The court also considered whether the sentence was appropriate, particularly in light of the appellant's other convictions and sentences. The court needed to determine if the admission of the statement had a material effect on the outcome of the trial and if the sentence was excessive or inappropriate given the circumstances.

The court found that the statement made by the appellant was not properly an admission and should not have been admitted. This error materially affected the outcome of the trial, leading the court to allow the appeal against conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court concluded that the sentence for the other offences should not be disturbed, but the sentence for the wounding offence needed to be reassessed. The court set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial for the wounding offence. The sentences for the other offences were confirmed, and the court set a parole release date.

The court ordered that the conviction for unlawfully wounding with intent to disfigure be set aside and a new trial be ordered. The court also set aside the orders that the sentences for other indictments were to be served concurrently with the wounding offence sentence but cumulatively with respect to the other count. The sentences for the other offences were otherwise confirmed, and the parole release date was fixed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Allow the appeal against conviction, set aside the (unlawfully wounding with intent to disfigure) on indictment number 1764 of 2013 and order a new trial upon those counts. with intent to commit an indictable offence) and count 2convictions and sentences on count 1 (entering a dwelling1.

Set aside the orders that the sentences imposed in respect of the other indictments are to be served concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment on count 1 on indictment number 1764 of 2013 but cumulatively upon the sentence of imprisonment with respect to count 2 of that indictment.2.

Otherwise confirm the sentences and orders, including under s 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) in respect of indictments 1430 of 2013, 1573 of 2013 and 1675 of 2013.the statements and declarations of presentence custody3.

Fix a parole release date at 24 November 2015.4.

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.

CITATION:	R v Woods [2014] QCA 341
PARTIES:	R v WOODS, Aaron Lee (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 4 of 2014 CA No 213 of 2014 DC No 1430 of 2013 DC No 1573 of 2013 DC No 1675 of 2013 DC No 1764 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 October 2014
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison JJA and Henry J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Allow the appeal against conviction, set aside the (unlawfully wounding with intent to disfigure) on indictment number 1764 of 2013 and order a new trial upon those counts. with intent to commit an indictable offence) and count 2convictions and sentences on count 1 (entering a dwelling1. Set aside the orders that the sentences imposed in respect of the other indictments are to be served concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment on count 1 on indictment number 1764 of 2013 but cumulatively upon the sentence of imprisonment with respect to count 2 of that indictment.2. *Otherwise confirm the sentences and orders, including under s 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act* 1992 (Qld) in respect of indictments 1430 of 2013, 1573 of 2013 and 1675 of 2013.the statements and declarations of presentence custody3. Fix a parole release date at 24 November 2015.**4.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence and wounding with intent to disfigure – where the appellant had said to police “You should know me, I’m the granny slasher”, and that statement was admitted at trial as an admission – whether that evidence was not capable of amounting to an admission and was therefore inadmissible CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the appellant was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for wounding with intent to disfigure and to three years imprisonment for 49 other offences, to be served cumulatively – where the primary judge made a serious violent offence declaration, and did not set a parole eligibility date, being informed it would accrue after 80 per cent of the period of 17 years imprisonment had been served – where the Court has vacated the conviction upon which the 14 years period of imprisonment was based, and so it is necessary to grant leave to appeal against sentence – whether the sentence of three years imprisonment with parole release after 50 per cent for the other 49 offences should be disturbed Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 185 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(3) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 160B, Sch 1