R. v. Woods - [1994] QCA 526

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 526

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 381 of 1994
Brisbane
BeforeFitzgerald P. Pincus J.A. Dowsett J.
[R.v. Woods]

T H E Q U E E N

PETER JOHN WOODS (Applicant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P. AND DOWSETT J.

Judgment delivered 02/12/1994

This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences

imposed in the Trial Division at Brisbane on 31 August 1994.

The applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted of ten offences

of supply of a dangerous drug, heroin, one offence of possession of a thing used in the unlawful supply of a dangerous drug, a Telecom pager, and one offence of trafficking in a dangerous

drug, heroin. The trafficking was constituted by the ten

occasions of supply. He was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years in respect of the trafficking count and four years in

respect of each of the other counts, to be served concurrently, with a recommendation was that he be considered for parole after serving three years and six months.

All of the offences occurred between 17 June and 15 July 1993.

A drug user introduced an undercover policeman to the applicant, who thereafter supplied the undercover police officer on the ten occasions which gave rise to the offences. In all, about 5.7g of heroin of an average purity of 72.6% was supplied for a total amount of $9,865.00. On some occasions, the applicant sought out the undercover police officer for the purpose of effecting a sale, and the applicant was sentenced on the basis that he was seeking to expand his enterprise, and that he was, in part, motivated by a desire for profit.

However, these matters must be placed in context, and it is

convenient to do so primarily by reference to two reports provided by a psychiatrist, Dr Gregory Apel, dated respectively

19 August 1993 and 28 August 1994. What Dr Apel said in those

reports must be seen in conjunction with the applicant's age, he is 37, and criminal history. Apart from five comparatively

minor drug offences in New South Wales between 1978 and 1983, he committed no offences until the very end of 1991. Thereafter he had seven convictions, again for relatively minor offences, one

of dishonesty and six related to drugs. On no occasion, until now, was he sentenced to prison or given a community based order.

When Dr Apel first saw the applicant he had committed the

offences to which the present sentences relate and had been referred to Dr Apel "because of complications in management of his drug dependency". In his initial report, dated 19 August

1993, Dr Apel said:
"...
His drug dependence problems have been present for the last

8 years starting at the age of 28 but with a drug-free period of 4 years from 1988 to 1992 following a prolonged inpatient stay in Woden Valley Hospital in Canberra. During this period he had re-organised much of his life and appeared to be well on…

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 [1994] QCA 526
Case: [1994] QCA 526
Decision Date: 02/12/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R. v. Woods involved the applicant, Woods, who was convicted of heroin trafficking and related offences. Woods was found to have supplied an undercover agent with heroin on several occasions and was in possession of a pager, which led to the inference that he was planning to extend his operation. The applicant had a history of drug dependency and had made significant efforts towards rehabilitation prior to his arrest. The dispute centred on the severity of the sentence imposed by the lower court, which Woods deemed manifestly excessive given his personal circumstances and efforts towards rehabilitation. The case was heard by the higher court, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was justified under the circumstances and whether it was excessively harsh.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Woods was manifestly excessive, considering his personal history and efforts towards rehabilitation. The court was required to weigh the severity of the offences against the applicant's personal circumstances, including his history of drug dependency and his efforts to rehabilitate. The court also had to consider whether the sentence adequately reflected the nature and circumstances of the offences, including the extent of Woods's involvement in the trafficking operation and the potential impact of his actions on the community. Furthermore, the court was called upon to determine whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate when compared to sentences given in similar cases.

In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly examined the evidence presented regarding Woods's personal history and efforts towards rehabilitation, as well as the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court found that while the offences were serious, the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive when considering the applicant's personal circumstances and his efforts to address his drug dependency. The court emphasised the correlation between Woods's offences and his drug addiction, noting that a more lenient sentence would better serve the interests of justice by facilitating his rehabilitation. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the original sentence, substituting a sentence of imprisonment for four years on the trafficking count and two and a half years on each of the other counts, all to be served concurrently, with a recommendation for parole after one year. The court also declared that the time spent in pre-sentence custody would be counted as time already served.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed by the lower court was set aside. In its place, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for four years on the trafficking count and two and a half years on each of the other counts, to be served concurrently, with a recommendation for parole after one year. Additionally, the court declared that the time spent in pre-sentence custody between 15 July and 6 September 1993 would be counted as time already served.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GRANTED.

2.APPEAL ALLOWED.

3.SET ASIDE SENTENCE IMPOSED BELOW AND IN LIEU THEREOF SUBSTITUTE A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR FOUR YEARS ON THE TRAFFICKING COUNT AND TWO AND A HALF YEARS ON EACH OF THE OTHER COUNTS, ALL TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY, WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR PAROLE AFTER ONE YEAR.

4.DECLARE THAT THE TIME SPENT IN PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY BETWEEN 15 JULY AND 6 SEPTEMBER 1993 IS TIME ALREADY SERVED.

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.