Legal Research
Cases
R v Woods

R v Woods

Case [2015] NSWDC 228 20 March 2015

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Breach of Contract

Comparative Sentencing

Early Plea

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v WOODS [2015] NSWDC 228
Hearing dates: 19/03/2015
Decision date: 20 March 2015
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Count 1 sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months.
Count 2 sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months.
Count 3 and Count 4 sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
Count 5, taking into account the matters on the Form 1 - sentenced to a term of imprisonment 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years
s 166 certificate sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months.

Catchwords: Criminal - Sentence, supply prohibited drug, Form 1 matters, s.166 Certificate matter, early plea, comparative sentencing, encouragement by police officer to commit crime.
Legislation Cited: Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Attorney‑General’s Application No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 147
R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734
R v Chan [1999] NSWCCA 103 A
R v Ellis [2010] NSWCCA 298
LMN v R [2012] NSWCCA 52
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357
McBeth v R [2009] NSWCCA 235.
Muldrock v R [2011] 244 CLR 120
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610,
RCW v R (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 190
R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Cameron Leonard George Woods - Offender
Representation: Counsel:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Ms S Kluss - Offender

File Number(s): 2014/139583

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Cameron Leonard Woods appears today for sentence in relation to what are now five offences on an indictment which was presented today, although the accused was committed for sentence from the Local Court.
There was a deficiency in one of the Court Attendance Notices that was detected yesterday when this matter started before me. I was in the middle of a busy list of sentence matters and I stood the matter over to today to complete the matter given, amongst other things, the convenience of the Crown, counsel for the accused and appearance of the prisoner who had travelled down from the North Coast.
The indictment presented today encapsulating what was reflected in the Court Attendance Notices the subject of committal for sentence, alleges charges of supplying a prohibited drug to wit 3,4‑methylenedioxyamphetamine, otherwise known as MDMA between 4 April 2014 and 1 May 2014 at various places, usually in Sydney. Although, to be fair, count 4 is in fact an offence of “knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug” intimately concerned with the supply of that particular drug.
A charge brought pursuant to s 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment or 2,000 penalty units or both. There is no standard non-parole period for that offence.
The fifth count on the indictment is an offence of supplying not less than a commercial quantity of the prohibited drug…

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 [2015] NSWDC 228
Case: [2015] NSWDC 228
Decision Date: 20 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Woods, the defendant faced a series of charges related to drug supply and other criminal activities. The case was heard in the relevant court which presided over the sentencing of the defendant on multiple counts of supplying prohibited drugs, as well as other related charges. The defendant entered an early plea, which was considered in the sentencing process.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including the appropriate application of comparative sentencing principles, the influence of police encouragement in the defendant's actions, and the specific circumstances that warranted the imposition of a s.166 certificate. Each of these elements played a significant role in determining the final sentence. The court also had to consider the defendant's early plea and the specific details of each count, particularly those involving the supply of a prohibited drug and other related criminal activities.

The court thoroughly examined the defendant's criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the impact of the police officer's encouragement on the defendant's actions. The court found that despite the encouragement, the defendant played an active role in the commission of the crimes. The comparative sentencing approach ensured that the sentences were proportionate to the severity and nature of the offences. The court also found that the circumstances warranted the imposition of a s.166 certificate, leading to an additional sentence for this matter. After considering all factors, the court determined the appropriate terms of imprisonment for each count, ensuring that the sentences reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months for count 1, 18 months for count 2, 2 years each for counts 3 and 4, 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years for count 5, and 6 months for the s.166 certificate matter. Each sentence was tailored to address the specific elements of the charges and the defendant's involvement in the criminal activities.

Orders

Orders of the court

Count 1 sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months.

Count 2 sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months.

Count 3 and Count 4 sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.

Count 5, taking into account the matters on the Form 1 - sentenced to a term of imprisonment 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years

s 166 certificate sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months.

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 [2015] NSWDC 228

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

RCW v R (No 2)
[2014] NSWCCA 190

…A 52 Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357 McBeth v R [2009] NSWCCA 235. Muldrock v R [2011] 244 CLR 120 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610, RCW v R (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 190 R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Cameron Leonard George Woods - Offender Representat…
LMN v R
[2012] NSWCCA 52 Para 30

…5 in the indictment, that is, offences contrary to s 25(2) of the Act. Those decisions are Barlow [2010] NSWCCA 215, Ellis [2010] NSWCCA 298, LMN v R [2012] NSWCCA 52, McBeth [2009] NSWCCA 235. Those cases I have read. Each case is different, if I accept that, but they are of assistance.…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 74

…The principal offence has a standard non-parole period. Of course in Muldrock v R [2011] 244 CLR 120 when considering Part 4 Division 1A of the Act the Court overruled some of the significant conclusions of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the [2004] decision of Way. Ultimately, the Court concluded, in the cont…
Ellis v R
[2010] NSWCCA 298 Para 30

…offences covered by count 5 in the indictment, that is, offences contrary to s 25(2) of the Act. Those decisions are Barlow [2010] NSWCCA 215, Ellis [2010] NSWCCA 298, LMN v R [2012] NSWCCA 52, McBeth [2009] NSWCCA 235. Those cases I have read. Each case is different, if I accept that, but they are of assistance.…
R v Barlow
[2010] NSWCCA 215 Para 30

…ty imposed in relation to offences covered by count 5 in the indictment, that is, offences contrary to s 25(2) of the Act. Those decisions are Barlow [2010] NSWCCA 215, Ellis [2010] NSWCCA 298, LMN v R [2012] NSWCCA 52, McBeth [2009] NSWCCA 235. Those cases I have read. Each case is different, if I accept that, but…
McBeth v R
[2009] NSWCCA 235 Para 30

…is, offences contrary to s 25(2) of the Act. Those decisions are Barlow [2010] NSWCCA 215, Ellis [2010] NSWCCA 298, LMN v R [2012] NSWCCA 52, McBeth [2009] NSWCCA 235. Those cases I have read. Each case is different, if I accept that, but they are of assistance.…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25 Para 74

…inal Appeal in the [2004] decision of Way. Ultimately, the Court concluded, in the context of the earlier judgment of the High Court of Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357, that the standard non-parole period is just one part of the larger task of passing sentence. It is a guide but not a starting point and made various…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW)
[2002] NSWCCA 518 Para 8

…Those matters will be taken into account in accordance with the guideline judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in relation to Form 1 matters ((2002) 56 NSWLR 147 Attorney‑General’s Application No 1 of 2002 ) and I particularly refer in general terms to the observations of the Chief Justice for the Court between [1…
Morawski v State Rail Authority
[2000] NSWCCA 309

…th v R [2009] NSWCCA 235. Muldrock v R [2011] 244 CLR 120 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610, RCW v R (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 190 R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Cameron Leonard George Woods - Offender Representation: Counsel: Director of Public Prosecuti…
R v Chan
[1999] NSWCCA 103 Para 66

…But, having said that, in the decision of Chan [1999] NSWCCA 103 Acting Justice Smart reflected upon the role of what was called “entrapment” and its relevance to the assessment to the diminution of culpability where an undercover officer was involved. In that particular matter his Honour referred to three decisions…
Pearce v The Queen
[1998] HCA 57 Para 78

…account the totality of the criminality. In that respect I reflect the principles that are summarised by the majority of the High Court in Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610, particularly at [45] which reflected upon the fact that in sentencing for multiple offences an appropriate sentence for each offence must be fixed,…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 27)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 5)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v WOODS [2015] NSWDC 228
Hearing dates:	19/03/2015
Decision date:	20 March 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Count 1 sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months. Count 2 sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months. Count 3 and Count 4 sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years. Count 5, taking into account the matters on the Form 1 - sentenced to a term of imprisonment 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years s 166 certificate sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months.
Catchwords:	Criminal - Sentence, supply prohibited drug, Form 1 matters, s.166 Certificate matter, early plea, comparative sentencing, encouragement by police officer to commit crime.
Legislation Cited:	Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Attorney‑General’s Application No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 147 R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734 R v Chan [1999] NSWCCA 103 A R v Ellis [2010] NSWCCA 298 LMN v R [2012] NSWCCA 52 Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357 McBeth v R [2009] NSWCCA 235. Muldrock v R [2011] 244 CLR 120 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610, RCW v R (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 190 R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Cameron Leonard George Woods - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Director of Public Prosecutions Ms S Kluss - Offender
File Number(s):	2014/139583