Legal Research
Cases
R v Woods

R v Woods

Case [2009] NSWCCA 55 29 April 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CITATION:
R v Woods [2009] NSWCCA 55
FILE NUMBER(S):
2007/7831
HEARING DATE(S):
27 November 2008
JUDGMENT DATE:
29 April 2009
PARTIES:
Crown - Appellant
Jacob Charles Woods - Respondent
JUDGMENT OF:
Giles JA Latham J Mathews AJ
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
07/61/0100
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Nicholson DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
2 June 2008
COUNSEL:
J Girdham - Crown
P Strickland SC - Respondent
SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)
S O'Connor (Legal Aid Commission)
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW
Crown appeal
23 charges
majority sexual offences
three young victims
whether sentences manifestly inadequate
criminality involved
charges based on admissions of respondent
early plea of guilty
assistance to authorities
LEGISLATION CITED:
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
CATEGORY:
Principal judgment
CASES CITED:
KJH v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 189
MLP v R [2006] NSWCCA 271; 164 A Crim R 93
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v AJP [2004] NSWCCA 434
R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148
R v Cage [2006] NSWCCA 304
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Gorman (2002) 137 A Crim R 326
R v Kennedy [2000] NSWCCA 527
R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267;
TEXTS CITED:
DECISION:
Crown appeal allowed.
Respondent resentenced.
JUDGMENT:
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 2007/7831
DC 07/61/0100
GILES JA
LATHAM J
MATHEWS AJ
Wednesday 29 April 2009

R v Jacob Charles WOODS

1 THE COURT: This a Crown appeal against the asserted inadequacy of sentences imposed by Nicholson DCJ (“the Judge”) in the District Court at Bourke on 2 June 2008. The respondent had pleaded guilty to 14 charges. In addition, seven related charges were dealt with under s 167 of Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Two further charges were dealt with under Form 1.

2 The proliferation of charges against the respondent – 23 in all – means that, without a degree of simplification, a somewhat confusing picture emerges. This is compounded by the fact that the individual charges have generally been identified by reference to “sequence numbers” which bear no apparent logical sequence at all.
The offences

3 The great majority of charges related to sexual activities between the respondent and three young boys. Those boys are

·              NB, born in April 1995
·              ME, born in May 1998
·              DG, born in August 1996

4 All offences took place in Bourke, in one of two homes rented by the respondent, and over two separate periods: first, between February and October 2005, when the respondent was living in a unit in Richards Street; and later, between May 2006 and January 2007, when he was living in a house in Church Street. Between October 2005 and May 2006 the respondent was living in Moree and no offences took place.

5 The respondent was between 23 and 25 years…

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 [2009] NSWCCA 55
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 55
Decision Date: 29 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Woods, who had been found guilty of 23 charges, predominantly sexual offences, against three young victims. The Crown contended that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly inadequate, given the nature and extent of the criminality involved. The respondent had entered an early guilty plea and had provided assistance to the authorities.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly inadequate in light of the severity of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence. The Crown argued that the sentences did not adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes committed, and that the trial judge had failed to consider the need to uphold the community's confidence in the criminal justice system. The court was required to assess the sentences imposed in the context of the principles of sentencing, including the need for deterrence and the protection of the community.

The court held that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the gravity of the crimes and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court found that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the seriousness of the offences. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the community's expectations and uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for resentencing.

The court did not make any final orders in the judgment provided. However, it was made clear that the matter would be remitted to the trial court for the purpose of resentencing, ensuring that the sentences imposed would adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes committed and the need for deterrence.

Orders