R v Woods

[2021] NSWDC 264

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Woods [2021] NSWDC 264

Hearing dates:

29 January 2021

Decision date:

29 January 2021

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Haesler SC DCJ

Decision:

Sentence appeal – Appeal dismissed. I confirm all orders of the magistrate. See [63]

Commonwealth offences – For orders see [64]-[68]

New South Wales offences - Aggregate sentence of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 9 months. See [69]-[70]

Catchwords:

CRIME - Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV) - Common assault (DV) - Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical harm (domestic) - Do act intending to pervert the course of justice - Use carriage service to threaten serious harm - Use carriage service to menace/harass/offend

SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence – domestic violence offences- two complainants – his sequential partners- attempt to interfere with administration of justice - history of childhood deprivation- violence normalised- institutionalised- serving sentence- disrupted period of imprisonment to date- early guilty pleas- structure of sentences- accumulation and concurrency with existing sentences

SENTENCING — Federal offenders — Sentence by State court for offence against Commonwealth law-interaction with state sentences

MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS — Telecommunications services — Offences — Use of carriage service to harass

APPEAL - appeal to District Court – sentence – sentences entirely appropriate – appeals dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence Act 2001 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA; (2018) 96 NSWLR 1

Texts Cited:

Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence, Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council, April 2011

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Steven James Woods (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr R Steward (for the offender)

Solicitors:
Maguire McInerney (for the offender)
Mr M Rollestone (for Director of Public Prosecutions, NSW)

File Number(s):

2019/00260719; 2019/00328575 (Sentence)
2019/00260737; 2019/00328574 (Sentence appeal)

SENTENCE – ex tempore revised

1. Steven Woods was born in 1992. From about the age of 15 he has regularly appeared before the Children’s, the Local and now the District Court. Too much of his life has been spent in custody. He went to live with his father at 15 and was raised in a household where violence had been normalised. Once he went into juvenile detention and adult gaols he was housed with others for whom violence was normalised. Those institutions have formed the man for sentence today.

2. Woods has never had an opportunity to lead a normal life. It would appear his capacity to relate to others has been influenced by the environment in which he grew up. Study after study, some of which are summarised in the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council report, Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence, April 2011, indicates that gaol and juvenile institutions can provide a criminal learning environment. The offender before me bears that out. I will, as I must, take into account his background, including the history of childhood deprivation and the evidence that he has become institutionalised. I will structure the sentence to enable him to be supervised for as long as practicable, should he earn release to parole.

3. But this sentence has to focus not just on the offender but on the crimes he committed and those whom he harmed. I have heard from two of his victims today.

4. Woods entered pleas of guilty in the Local Court to all of the matters now before me. They involve both Commonwealth and State (NSW) offences. In relation to the State offences, I will, in accordance with the legislative provisions, reduce the otherwise appropriate sentences by 25% to reflect those early pleas of guilty: s 25 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). So far as the Commonwealth matters are concerned, I will take into account and give effect to the early pleas of guilty in accordance with the provisions: s 16A(2)(g) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). And, of course, the decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA; (2018) 96 NSWLR 1. I will take care not erode the benefit of those early pleas of guilty during the process of accumulation.

5. Nothing in the evidence before me indicates any remorse being shown by Woods. But given that the material indicates he has little concern for himself it is hardly surprising that he had no significant concern for his victims. Nor is it surprising, although it is sad, that he still engages in victim blaming. He has a lot of growing up to do. He has to do a lot of learning if he is to turn his life around. Tragically, the experience to date is that these lessons have not been learned in gaol or juvenile detention.

6. There are matters for sentence today which were committed from the Local Court. He also put before the Court a sentence appeal against the sentences imposed at Wollongong Local Court on 17 September 2020. They involved fixed terms of 12 and 6 months, for break and enter and larceny; a total term of 13 months with a release date of 17 September 2020. Those sentences were served concurrently and cumulatively with other matters in the Local Court. Although he became eligible for release on 17 September 2020, another Local Court matter, involving an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, had a parole period that expired in December 2020. He was not released to parole then. Not because of the matters presently before the Court directly, but because he has had bail refused for other matters that are still before the Local Court.

7. It is accepted that one of the reasons why he was bail refused, however, was the commission of these offences. He has been in continuous custody since 22 February 2019. I will also take into account that there were delays in bringing the sentence matters to this court (apart from the sentence appeal). The police were aware of the allegations and aware he was in custody well before he was ultimately served court attendance notices.

8. His custodial history illustrates how many times he has moved between gaols during entering custody 22 February 2019 and March 2020. He has been to; Amber Laurel, Parklea; Metropolitan Remand, Kariong, Metropolitan Remand, Junee, Bathurst, Parklea, Bathurst, Junee, Metropolitan Remand, Junee Bathurst, Metropolitan Remand, Goulburn, Metropolitan Remand, Goulburn, Metropolitan Remand and Parklea. He had been at Parklea since 13 March to 2021.

9. For a considerable period of this period, he has been restricted to an A2 classification which, when combined with him being on Special Management Area Protection (SMAP), has restricted his access to work and programs. Restrictions that were further compounded by the necessary measures taken to quarantine prisoners from the present COVID-19 pandemic. Those general restrictions reduce a prisoner’s capacity to interact with family and access to programs. I take them into account in synthesising the appropriate sentences.

10. Returning to the appeal. Those matters involved calculated crimes of dishonesty for profit. I have read the facts. I have read that was before the Court, some of which is similar to the material before me. Given his antecedents and the nature of the offending, which was against local businesses, the sentences imposed by the magistrate and the leniency inherent in only modest accumulation seem to me entirely appropriate. I would not interfere with them. Similarly, the dates and periods of time relative to other Local Court sentences appear entirely appropriate. In the circumstances - and I note that I concur with the appropriateness of fixed terms, which I take to reflect a minimum term necessary that must be spent in custody for the offences - in those circumstances, the appeals, exercising my own independent discretion, I would dismiss the appeals against sentence.

11. One reason put by Mr Steward, counsel for Woods, for bringing the appeals before this Court was to give me the maximum degree of flexibility when it came to imposing sentences for the indictable matters. I will take that opportunity when it comes to the starting date of the sentences, to which I now turn.

12. The offences relate to two complainants, with whom Woods was in sequential relationships. They’re both New South Wales offences and Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) offences. Two State offences have Forms 1 attached; respectively destroy or damage property and intimidation. One Commonwealth offence has a schedule matter for use carriage service to menace that must be taken into account: s 21B(a) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

13. The sentence matters are set out in this that comes from Prosecution summary:

CHARGE/S Offence	Section and Act	Maximum Penalty	SNPP
1st Complainant
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm	s59 Crimes Act 1900(NSW)	5 years	No
Common assault	s61 Crimes Act 1900(NSW)	2 years	No
Intimidation	s13 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence Act 2001 (NSW)	5 years	No
Use carriage service to threaten serious harm	s474.15(2) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)	7 years	No
Common assault	s61 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)	2 years	No
Do act intending to pervert the course of justice	s319 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)	14 years	No
2nd Complainant
Intimidation	s13 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence Act) 2001	5 years	No
Use carriage service to threaten serious harm	s474.15(2) Criminal Code Act	7 years	No
Intimidation	s13 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence Act 2001	5 years	No
Intimidation	s13 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence Act 2001	5 years	No

14. I have had the benefit of comprehensive written submissions by Mr Steward, who appears for the offender, and Mr Rollestone, solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW). Both set out summaries of the maximum penalties to which I have referred. Both submissions set out in short summary, and in a ways that does credit to both advocates, the objective seriousness of the respective offences. Their submissions do not differ significantly.

15. There are two facts documents before the Court; relating to each individual complainant.

16. The offender and the first complainant were in an on-off relationship for about three years until June 2018. The first incident occurred on 12 December 2017. It began when the offender banged on the window of the complainant’s house in Barrack Heights. He demanded she open the back door. When she did so, he demanded her phone. He pushed past her going into the bedroom. He took her phone and broke it with his hands. He was apparently angry that she had gone out to lunch with a friend: Form 1 sequence 2.

17. He then assaulted her on a number of occasions; sequence 7. He put his hands around her throat and squeezed for a few seconds. When the complainant went to the ground, he spat in her face. He then went inside the house, yelling at her. He then threw a full water bottle at her, hitting her in the back of the head. The incident took a number of minutes. As they went through the house, another water bottle was thrown. It hit her in the chest.

18. Woods then kicked her to her left forearm, causing a scratch and a graze. The force of the kick caused her to stumble into a gas heater. That left a bruise on her thigh. He pushed her and he bent her over the top of the staircase railing. She was frightened that he might drop her over the railing. He then laughed at her and went into her bedroom. At this stage, she was too scared to leave or do anything. He told her at one stage, “I won’t be leaving here until I’ve really hurt you.”

19. Eventually, the complainant was able to get over the back fence and go to her neighbour’s house. She saw a doctor, who photographed the bruise on her thigh.

20. Sequence 18 relates to an offence on 5 January 2018. The offender and the complainant had a verbal argument, and texts were exchanged. A demand was made that she pick him up in her car. As they were driving, the offender grabbed the steering wheel and yanked it, causing it to veer into the middle lane. The complainant was worried and stressed as she drove as directed by the offender. They were asked to pull up by Police at a Random Breath Test (RBT) station. This further enraged the offender, who somehow blamed the complainant for stopping. While she was driving the car he punched the left side of her jaw. She felt the crack in her left ear. While she began to scream, the offender pushed her head into the driver’s side window. She stopped. He got out of the car then came back, picked up his phone and walked away.

21. Sequence 10 relates to an act of intimidation that occurred at that time. As she tried to drive away, she saw the offender standing in front of her car in the middle of the road. He directed she drive into a Caltex service station. So disturbing was the event that members of the public called Triple-0. The complainant had enough sense of mind to park near a CCTV camera. He continued to yell at her, but she did not allow him to get into the car. He walked off and picked up a rock; she feared that he was going to throw the rock. She did not pick him up. She drove to her home and then drove to her friend’s in Sydney. She received text messages from him later that day.

22. Sequence 12, the Commonwealth offence of use carriage service, relates to an event on 2 February 2018. The first complainant’s four‑year‑old niece had come to stay at the house. During the evening, the offender sent numerous threatening text messages to the victim. They included threats, “you wonder why I hurt ppl”, calling her a slut, concluding, “you put me on show and for that I wanna blade ya.” There were other derogatory text messages sent that night. So fearful was she for her safety that she took her niece and drove her car to Shellharbour Hospital. She still continued to receive text messages after that.

23. On 19 February 2018, another common assault incident occurred: sequence 14. The complainant and the offender were in his car. He locked the doors and grabbed her phone. He accused her of sleeping with other men. She was extremely scared and begged him to let her go. The offender did some damage to the complainant’s brother’s car. He then drove towards Warilla. He stopped the car and pushed her head into the side of the window with some force. As the complainant tried to leave he grabbed her and said “Who’s going to believe you?” She was allowed to leave and rang Triple-0.

24. Sequence 15, intimidation is referable to sequence 10, it relates to text messages sent on 1 April 2018. He first sent her a message when she saw him walking around his house. Given the nature of the messages and the presence at the house and the history of the matter, the offence of intimidation is made out.

25. Eventually on 15 April 2018, the complainant made a statement to the police. The offender became aware of this and sent her a series of texts, demanding she write a statement saying she got the dates mixed up, and that he did not touch her. As result of the messages, which are detailed in the facts, the victim felt pressured and guilty. She did eventually send a text attempting to exculpate the offender. He then forwarded that text to his solicitor.

26. It was not until 11 October 2019 that these matters came before a court following a Field Court Attendance Notice (Field CAN); which were served at the gaol.

27. The second complainant formed a relationship with the offender in May 2018. It continued until about January 2019. She has a three-year-old daughter and, after these events, has borne a baby son to the offender. Sequence 4, intimidation, and sequence 7, common assault referable to sequence 4, occurred on 11 November. The two had had a two week separation and, on this day, they were in the complainant’s bedroom when he demanded she unlock her phone and enable him to look through it. He saw a screenshot that made him angry. He accused her, “It’s only been a week and you’re already with other guys.” He pushed her chest with his palm, causing her to fall backwards onto the bed, hurting her neck. Her chest was sore and had a red mark as a consequence.

28. While she tried to explain that she was not with another male, he failed to believe her. She was very scared and tried to position herself so that she could escape him, which she eventually did. She took the car keys, but she saw the offender at the top of the staircase holding her phone. “Where the fuck do you think you’re going?” he said. She replied, “the police.” He threw the phone at her, narrowly missing her.

29. She was able to get to the car and, as she reversed, she saw him coming towards her, demanding she return and take him home. He made other threats to her. She was scared and crying, and she begged him not to do anything to her. He eventually gave her an assurance, but as she drove the offender home, he again became angry about what he had seen on her phone. So scared was she that she stopped her car more than once.

30. Sequences 8, 9 and 10 relate to events on 20 January 2019. On this occasion she was pregnant with the offender’s child. She was with a friend at a restaurant in North Wollongong having dinner, when she received threatening text messages in respect to his jealousy towards her. There was a phone call. He was aggressive and abusive. He was demanding of her. He threatened to smash her head in. He demanded to speak to her friend.

31. The phone was put on loudspeaker and others could hear threats about a blade to her face. By this stage she was sick, and she was shaking. She was called a “dead slut” and other offensive names and threats, and demands were made of her. The threats to the complainant continued. There were also threats to her family and her friend. They were both verbal, on the phone, and in text messages. Some details were in the facts before me.

32. At about 10pm, the offender arrived at the home where the complainant was staying overnight. He demanded she come outside and speak to him. When she refused, he threatened to come inside. She was scared but she complied and let him in. He was aggressive towards her. He was demanding she get an abortion. He made other significant threats. There was also a Form 1 matter relating to his kicking the laundry door at the premises, an admission he made, because he thought a male was in the home.

33. Sequences 11 and 18 relate to events on 22 January 2019. The offender sent 36 text messages and made five telephone calls to the second complainant. He then entered her home in Bellambi. She was not there at the time. He took her dog for a walk despite her not giving him permission to do so. He returned the dog entered her home and had a shower. He called her from her home. She made it clear that she did not want him there but he stayed for some hours. He continued to call and message the complainant well into the evening; questioning her about where she was staying and who she was staying with. She told him she was scared of him. He told her that he would walk in whatever house she was in and do whatever he wanted, to whoever he wants.

34. The offender was seen by a friend of the second complainant driving in the street at about 8.40. The messages continued including texts about his insistence on having sex with her and demanding she send pictures of herself. Among the threats made was one to “cave her head in.” He demanded that she let him have sex with her one last time; a demand she refused. The final message was sent from inside her lounge room - it was a picture of his penis.

35. Sequences 13 and 14 relate to 23 January 2019. As before, abusive and threatening messages were sent. The details are in the facts before me. Woods also called the second complainant and abused her for not answering the phone on previous occasions. He said he would kill her dog if she went to the police. He called her offensive names. He made it clear to her that she was really easy to find. Unsurprisingly, she was scared. She asked to be left alone and threatened to call the police.

14. Further calls were made that were left unanswered. She repeatedly told the offender she did not want to have anything to do with him. He sent her a picture of a friend’s front screen door, a place he thought she was staying. She repeatedly told him to leave her alone, but he continued to message her and make demands of her. He continued to send harassing messages to well into the evening. During that period, he sent 219 messages threatening her or demanding to see her. She was fearful for her safety and the safety of her family. So scared she moved from her home and changed her phone number. She went to police on 1 May 2019 and made a statement. He was arrested on 21 August 2019.

15. It is accepted that the offences, individually and collectively, were serious. In relation to both of his victims, he displayed a degree of anger and possessiveness that breached any trust that a person in the relationship with him would have expected. He coerced each victim; he put pressure on them. His behaviour was obsessively possessive. He targeted their property; he undermined their mental wellbeing. When he assaulted them he targeted their heads.

16. So far as the first complainant was concerned, the assault occasioning actual bodily harm was prolonged and included the squeezing of her throat with the all the potential risks of such actions. He spat in her face. He demeaned her. He kicked her. He threatened to hurt her even more seriously. He forced her to flee. His behaviour towards her was repeated on a number of occasions. There multiple demands made of her and a further assault, with yells and screams and threats.

17. So far as the Commonwealth matters are concerned, he was aware the child was present when he made those threats. She was again assaulted, again her phone was targeted. He seemed unconcerned about her, and again spat in her face. His demeaning comment, “Who is going to believe you?” summed up his attitude to her, reflecting his own his ego, and his possessiveness.

18. The course of justice offence involved further threats and played on any emotional connection they once had. It was directed, not just at his victim, but at the justice system itself. Any attempt to damage the administration of justice by interfering with court proceedings and police investigations strikes at the heart of our judicial system. It is fundamentally important that confidence is maintained in our justice system. Anyone who interferes with it should be subject to severe penalty. Courts must impose sentences that attempt to deter others and this offender from engaging in such crimes.

19. Woods’ behaviour towards the second complainant was also serious. He was aware she had a three-year old and she was pregnant during part of the relevant time. The offences from November 2018 again show his possessiveness and his jealousy. He responded to her entreaties to him with an assaults directed at her phone and herself, forcing her to flee. Again, the demands were made of her that show his only concern was for himself.

20. In January 2019, there were the extensive threats. Again, they were threatening, persistent and possessive. When she said the police might be called there were more threats; serious ones at that. Within days, there was more self‑entitled behaviour. He ignored her rights as a person and her privacy; he treated her property as his own. He again showed obsessive jealousy. This was more than simply an emotional reaction to a break-down of a relationship, this seriously criminal behaviour. His demands of her were demeaning and aggressive. His attitude was “I can do what I want”, and the contact the following day had the same tone and showed a degree of persistence that does him no credit.

21. It is accepted that only custodial sentences could be imposed. The abuse of the relationships of trust must be taken into account. I doubt that Mr Woods is presently able to understand how serious his actions were. He must, while in custody, think, and think carefully about how he is to relate to others on release, particularly those who form intimate relationships with him.

22. Here, as is too often the case, the victim of his domestic violence was personally targeted. The offending, as is clear from the brief recitation of the agreed facts which I have gone through, was part of a larger picture of physical and mental violence in which this offender exercised power and control over both his victims.

23. It would appear from all the material before me and the facts themselves that, at the times, he believed what he was doing was justified, or excused. At times he seems to think he is the true victim. The belief that he is the one who has been wronged carries with it a continued threat to his victims. As is clear from the Victim Impact Statements that were read to me today, neither of the complainants feels truly safe except while he is in custody.

24. The Courts treat such matters with real seriousness. His behaviour was not just unacceptable, it is seriously criminal. His crimes had an effect on both of the complainants, the child of Ms Munroe and others in the community. Courts must denounce such behaviour by the imposition of custodial penalties where necessary, and this is such a case.

25. This creates a dilemma, because community protection, supported by growing community perceptions, demand that men who assault women in their homes be punished severely. We do this, generally, by removing men from our community and placing them in gaol. As this offender’s long history of dealing with, and being dealt with by, custodial Juvenile Justice and adult custodial system makes clear, as a deterrent to violent behaviour, gaols have and will continue to fail. Gaols break any prosocial bonds the person has in the community. They encourage links with other criminals in an intrinsically violent environment. Rather than discouraging violent crime, gaol terms can have, and appears to have had here, a crime-producing effect. Simply put, putting a violent misogynist in gaol with other violent misogynists is a particularly ineffective way of addressing the underlying causes of the crimes that he committed.

26. Steven Woods was born in 1982. His father, an Aboriginal Australian. He spent most time in custody this sentence in Special Management Area Protection (SMAP). He had a number of Children’s Court appearances and spent periods in juvenile detention. Since 2010, he has had convictions in the Local Court and gaol sentences. He has served a sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm on one of his victims. He was arrested and gaoled, and has been in custody since 22 September 2019. His other effective non-parole periods expired on 17 September 2020, the matter the subject of the appeal. He would otherwise have been eligible for parole on 21 June 2019, subject to other matters which are yet to be disposed of and these proceedings. His record does him no credit, and it is clear that there is real risk that he has been institutionalised.

27. I have the benefit of a comprehensive report from Mr Jones, psychologist. It is a warts‑and‑all report. It indicates that Woods shows no real remorse or understanding of the harm that he has done to the complainants or the community. He still believes that he can attack and denigrate them. He told Mr Jones that, when he spends time in the community, he does not enjoy it.

28. It would appear from all the material before me, including Mr Jones’ opinions, that violence and anti-social behaviour have been normalised since he was a teenager. Woods suffers from deep-seated anger, conflict, and distrust of others. There are few positives to point to. He scores high on drug and alcohol misuse measures. Mr Jones diagnoses a drug and alcohol misuse disorders. He scores extremely high on the anxiety scales.

29. If Woods is to resume his place in society and not reoffend, it is clear, as Mr Jones points out, that he will require significant assistance in custody and on release. He will need to abstain from the use and abuse of illicit drugs. He will need assistance in doing so. He will need cognitive behaviour therapy to address continuing difficulties associated with past trauma.

30. He will need to participate in programs both in custody and out. There are good programs available but he has to embrace them. He cannot be forced to change. However hard though it may be, given behaviours entrenched since he was too young to make rational choices, he has to understand that, if he is to take his place in the community, he will need to change. If he can take advantage of the anger management and other programs that hopefully will be made available to him during the balance of his term this may occur.

31. I will have a copy of Mr Jones’ report sent to the gaol with the warrant. I draw particular attention to [4.5]. How he copes with those demands, given his institutionalisation, will determine whether he is released to parole and how soon he returns to the community. At present, he is a danger to any person with whom he is in a relationship, but I cannot detain him forever. The sentences must bear a proper relationship to what was done. Informing those sentences are maximum penalties, which are guides to the exercise of my sentencing discretion.

32. I do not simply add up all of the indicated sentences, or all of the matters that are before me, one on top of the other. The sentences, as indicated or imposed, must be proportionate to his offending, take into account his plea of guilty and his subjective case. The totality of all his offending, not just the matters before me, must be a just and appropriate to that total criminality. There are two victims and a community interest in their vindication. There must be individual punishment for separate offences.

33. There are State and Commonwealth matters for sentence. I also have to take into account when I sentence for the charges to which they apply both the Form’s 1 and the s 20AB Commonwealth Crimes Act schedule. They require greater weight be given to matters such as deterrence and community protection when I formulate that sentence only. I do not sentence for the matters on the form or the schedule. I have to be careful not to double count matters that I have already considered when formulating the sentences.

34. I am indebted to both counsel for their comprehensive and objective submissions.

35. As to the structure of the sentence, I have sought to fix an overall sentence that allows for a period of supervision and hopefully management, so he can engage in the programs the community that he so sorely needs. I am not confident he will take advantage of those programs if they are offered to him, but they must be offered. If he is to not offend again, he has to learn the skills and become self-sufficient and self-aware. He must engage with those whose job it is to help him prevent reoffending. Given that I am sentencing for both Commonwealth and State matters, I propose to impose Commonwealth fixed terms to reflect the minimum term in custody required. There will be considerable concurrence in those matters.

36. In relation to the State matters, I will then impose a State aggregate sentence. The way I have structured the sentence requires a finding special circumstances, not just to allow for supervision in the community, but to reflect the accumulation of sentences. The principle of totality means that I cannot simply add everything one sentence on top of the other. The sentences, as indicated and as accumulated, could not meet the expectations of the complainants in these matters. I commend them for coming forward. I understand what they went through. Their Victim’s Impact Statements were moving, and I should refer to them before I proceed to sentence.

37. The first complainant spoke of; a loss of trust, the abuse of the relationship, the cowardly things that were done to her. She told me of her anxiety, depression and fear and paranoia. She said, somehow, she still felt sorry for the offender as it was sad that he had no one to love him. Her capacity to show empathy was not reciprocated. To the contrary, he mocked her and responded to her love with coercive statements and violence. The fear that she experienced during the relationship was conveyed to everyone in this Court, except, I suspect, to Woods himself. As she said, “power and the exercise of power is not love.”

38. The second complainant spoke of how she felt controlled and manipulated, both physically and emotionally. She spoke of how she was mentally abused. She hoped Woods would show remorse, but he has not. She speaks of his behaviour as “predatorial” and “monstrous”. She says, however, that she remains strong. She accepts that the pain will pass but that it will take time, She will get by with the love of friends and family.

39. I acknowledge that Mr Woods’ family are here in Court. I acknowledge that he will have little contact with them while he serves his sentence, particularly given the COVID-19 pandemic. While I am not optimistic, I will give him the chance to, as he matures, to take the opportunity of release to parole. If he does not, then he will stay where he is most comfortable, that is in gaol.

Orders

62. In relation to the matters before me, I have to indicate sentences, and the fix the sentences imposed. As indicated at [4] the guilty pleas are taken into account.

Sentence Appeal

63. So far as the appeal is concerned, it is dismissed. I confirm all the orders of the magistrate.

Commonwealth matters

64. Dealing first Commonwealth matters - in each matter you are convicted. There will be fixed terms. They will date from 28 August 2020.

65. In relation to Sequence 9 (H72065007/9) Use carriage service to threaten serious harm, taking into account the matter on the Commonwealth 16BA schedule, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 months. Your sentence is to commence on 22/08/20 and to expire on 21/06/21

66. In relation to Sequence 11 (H72065007/11) Use carriage service to menace/harass/offend, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months. Your sentence is to commence on 22/09/20 and to expire on 21/09/21.

67. In relation to Sequence 14 (H72065007/14) Use carriage service to menace/harass/offend, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 months. Your sentence is to commence on 22/10/20 and to expire on 21/07/21.

68. In relation to Sequence 12 (H75122089/12) Use carriage service to threaten serious harm you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 13 months. Your sentence is to commence on 22/11/20 and to expire on 21/12/21.

NSW matters

69. There will be an aggregate sentence for the New South Wales matters. In each matter you are convicted. The sentence will start on 22 February 2021.

• In relation to Sequence 7 (H75122089/7) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV), taking into account the matter on the Form 1, I indicate a sentence of 1 year 8 months.

• In relation to Sequence 18 (H75122089/18) Common assault (DV), I indicate a sentence of 9 months.

• In relation to Sequence 10 (H75122089/10) Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic), taking into account the matter on the Form 1, I indicate a sentence of 11 months.

• In relation to Sequence 14 (H75122089/14) Common assault (DV) I indicate a sentence of 14 months.

• In relation to Sequence 16 (H75122089/16) Do act etc intending to pervert the course of justice, I indicate a sentence of 9 months.

• In relation to Sequence 4 (H72065007/4) Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic), taking into account the matter on the Form 1, I indicate a sentence of 9 months.

• In relation to Sequence 18 (H72065007/18) Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic), taking into account the matter on the Form 1, I indicate a sentence of 7 months.

• In relation to Sequence 13 (H72065007/13) Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic), I indicate a sentence of I indicate a sentence of 7 months

70. In relation to the State matters, noting that they commence six months after the Commonwealth matters were imposed, there will be an aggregate sentence of three years and six months. The non-parole period will be one year and nine months, dating from 22 February 2021, making him eligible for parole on 21 November 2022. I make a finding of special circumstances predominately because of accumulation, to allow for maximum time on supervision to be one year and nine months, which will date from 22 November. Total sentence expiring on 21 August 2024. This means you will be eligible for consideration for parole on 21 November 2022.

71. You will not get parole unless you are ready to be released to parole. For what it is worth, I would recommend that you not be released to parole if you cannot be enabled to engage in necessary programs in the community. But it is very much your behaviour that will determine whether or not you are released to parole and that is the decision for the State Parole Authority. Do you understand that, Mr Woods?

OFFENDER: Yes, your Honour.

**********

Decision last updated: 21 June 2021