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

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.
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…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Woods and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWDC 264
Decision Date: 29 January 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Woods involved the defendant, Woods, who faced multiple charges arising from violent conduct and misuse of communication services. The charges included assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault, stalking or intimidating with intent to cause fear of physical harm, perverting the course of justice, using a carriage service to threaten serious harm, and using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend. The case was heard and determined by the District Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriateness of the sentences imposed by the magistrate for both state and federal offences. The defence appealed on the grounds that the sentences were inappropriate, arguing for a reduction or modification in the sentencing structure. The prosecution contended that the sentences were entirely appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences.

The court found that the magistrate's assessment of the relevant factors, particularly the history of domestic violence, the impact on the victims, and the defendant's background, was sound. The court noted the defendant's history of childhood deprivation, which normalised and institutionalised violence, but also recognised his early guilty pleas and the disruption to his period of imprisonment. The court held that the magistrate had appropriately structured the sentences, ensuring accumulation and concurrency with existing sentences. The appeal was dismissed, and the court confirmed all orders of the magistrate, including the imposition of a sentence of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months.

In relation to the federal offences, the court considered the interaction with state sentences and found no basis to alter the magistrate's orders. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentences for the federal offences as well, confirming the orders as set out in the magistrate's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

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]

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.

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)